Case Name: Zainab MOHAMMED, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-28
Citations: 440 F. App'x 568
Docket Number: No. 09-73761
Parties: Zainab MOHAMMED, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 440
Pages: 568–569

Head Matter:
Zainab MOHAMMED, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-73761.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 28, 2011.
Manny Aguja, Law Offices of Manny A. Aguja, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.
OIL, Jeffery R. Leist, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, 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
Zainab Mohammed, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims, and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Mohammed's motion to reopen for failure to comply with the requirements in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See id. at 900; see also Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1090-91 (9th Cir.2010) ("By failing to provide any information regarding his purported former counsel, [petitioner] has failed to provide any other independent basis from which to analyze his claim.").
Mohammed's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to exercise authority to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.