Case Name: Maria GONZALEZ-GARIBALDO, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-01
Citations: 125 F. App'x 147
Docket Number: No. 03-73837; Agency No. A72-538-069
Parties: Maria GONZALEZ-GARIBALDO, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before HAWKINS, MCKEOWN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 125
Pages: 147–147

Head Matter:
Maria GONZALEZ-GARIBALDO, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-73837.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 15, 2005.
Decided April 1, 2005.
Jaime Jasso, Immigration Appealworks, Westlake Village, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service Laguna Niguel, CA, Michelle E. Gorden, Esq., and Thomas H. Tousley, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before HAWKINS, MCKEOWN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Even if Gonzalez-Garibaldo's petition for review is timely, her lawyer received notice of the rescheduled hearing, which complied with 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(2). See Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000). Gonzalez-Garibaldo did not advance and cannot make out a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel as an exceptional circumstance under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), because she did not follow the procedures established by the BIA in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. (BIA 1988), and adopted by this Court. See, e.g., Lo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 934, 937 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that ineffective assistance of counsel may constitute an exceptional circumstance, but that a petitioner must substantially comply with the procedures articulated in Lozada). Finally, the BIA was well within its discretion to dismiss the appeal for failure to file a brief.
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.