Case Name: Orlando Hernandez GARCIA; Estella Lazaro, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Tom RIDGE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-30
Citations: 96 F. App'x 525
Docket Number: No. 03-16097
Parties: Orlando Hernandez GARCIA; Estella Lazaro, Petitioners—Appellants, v. Tom RIDGE, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before: GRABER and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and WEINER, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 525–525

Head Matter:
Orlando Hernandez GARCIA; Estella Lazaro, Petitioners—Appellants, v. Tom RIDGE, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-16097.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 9, 2004.
Decided April 30, 2004.
Brian D. Lerner, Esq., Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner, Carson, CA, for Petitioners-Appellants.
Edward A. Olsen, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: GRABER and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and WEINER, District Judge.
Honorable Charles R. Weiner, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Orlando Hernandez Garcia and Estella Lazaro, husband and wife, and natives and citizens of the Philippines, appeal from the district court's denial of their 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
There was no error in the district court's determination that Garcia and Lazaro failed to follow the requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 824 (9th Cir.2003) (applying Lozada factors to habeas petition). Neither was there substantial compliance with the Lozada affidavit, notification, and reporting requirements, such that the purpose of Lozada was "fully served by other means." Rojas-Garcia at 824-25 (quoting Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 526 (9th Cir. 2000)).
AFFIRMED.
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.