Case Name: Miguel Angel OROZCO-GRANADOS, a.k.a. Miguel Orozco, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-15
Citations: 483 F. App'x 390
Docket Number: No. 10-70077
Parties: Miguel Angel OROZCO-GRANADOS, a.k.a. Miguel Orozco, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 483
Pages: 390–391

Head Matter:
Miguel Angel OROZCO-GRANADOS, a.k.a. Miguel Orozco, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-70077.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
Filed Oct. 15, 2012.
Elsa Ines Martinez, Esquire, Law Offices of Elsa Martinez, PLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Rebecca Ariel Hoffberg, Esquire, Trial, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, UJ.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, 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
Miguel Angel Orozco-Granados, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Orozco-Granados's ineffective assistance of counsel claim where he failed to comply with the threshold requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the ineffective assistance he alleges is not plain on the face of the record. See Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1023 (9th Cir.2004) (failure to comply with Lozada is significant where the facts underlying petitioner's claim are not plain on the face of the record).
In light of our disposition, we need not address petitioner's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.