Case Name: Nilo Venturillo MARIANO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-03-22
Citations: 31 F. App'x 576
Docket Number: No. 01-70402; INS No. A75-301-217
Parties: Nilo Venturillo MARIANO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 31
Pages: 576–577

Head Matter:
Nilo Venturillo MARIANO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 01-70402 INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ]
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 11, 2002.
Decided March 22, 2002.
Before CANBY, BEEZER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The Attorney General of the United States is the proper respondent in a petition for review of an order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(3)(A).
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Nilo Venturillo Mariano, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on inef fective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Sharma v. INS, 89 F.3d 545, 547 (9th Cir.1996). We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion because Mariano failed to satisfy the requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and because this case does not involve an egregious set of facts. Cf. Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 525-26 (9th Cir.2000).
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.