Case Name: XIANGDAO CUI, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-16
Citations: 115 F. App'x 407
Docket Number: No. 03-74204
Parties: XIANGDAO CUI, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 407–408

Head Matter:
XIANGDAO CUI, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-74204.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
Decided Dec. 16, 2004.
Xiangdao Cui, Monterey Park, CA, pro se.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Xiangdao Cui, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA properly denied the Petitioner's motion to reopen because it did not satisfy the procedural requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and it was not clear from the record that Petitioner's former attorney received the BIA's merits decision and then failed to file a timely petition for review. See Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1227 (9th Cir.2002) (indicating that the Lozada factors are not strictly applied where a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is apparent from the record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW 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.