Case Name: Gustavo VILLAREAL-AVILA, a.k.a. Gustavo Villarenl-Avila and Gustavo Villareal, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-21
Citations: 362 F. App'x 803
Docket Number: No. 07-72879
Parties: Gustavo VILLAREAL-AVILA, a.k.a. Gustavo Villarenl-Avila and Gustavo Villareal, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 803–804

Head Matter:
Gustavo VILLAREAL-AVILA, a.k.a. Gustavo Villarenl-Avila and Gustavo Villareal, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72879.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 21, 2010.
Gustavo Villareal-Avila, Shatter, CA, pro se.
James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Nicole N. Murley, OIL, Aviva L. Poezter, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gustavo Villareal-Avila, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Reyes v. Ashcroft, 858 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Villareal-Avila's motion to reopen because he failed to satisfy the procedural requirements set forth in Matter of Loza-da, 19 I. & N. Dec. 687 (BIA 1988). See Reyes, 358 F.3d at 597-98.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.