Case Name: Agustin PESCADOR PROCEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-26
Citations: 401 F. App'x 218
Docket Number: No. 08-72328
Parties: Agustin PESCADOR PROCEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 401
Pages: 218–219

Head Matter:
Agustin PESCADOR PROCEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72328.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 26, 2010.
Agustín Pescador Procel, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Agustín Pescador Procel, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo constitutional questions, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Procel's motion to reopen because he did not comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988), and the alleged ineffective assistance is not plain on the face of the record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597-99 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.