Case Name: Filip BARANSKI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 358 F. App'x 950
Docket Number: No. 07-70815
Parties: Filip BARANSKI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 358
Pages: 950–950

Head Matter:
Filip BARANSKI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70815.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
Rion Latimore, Latimore Esq. LLC, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner.
Charles Canter, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Filip Baranski, a native and citizen of Poland, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his motions to reopen and reconsider, and denying his second motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Baranski fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA's determination that the IJ lacked jurisdiction over his motions to reopen and reconsider. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).
Construing Baranski's appeal as a second motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion because Baranski failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the ineffective assistance was not plain on the face of the record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.