Court Opinion

ID: 800823
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-05-23 20:18:32+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:57.623467
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            MAY 23 2012

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REINA BENITES ARMENTA,                           No. 10-73430

               Petitioner,                       Agency No. A095-304-099

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

               Respondent.

                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted May 15, 2012 **

Before:        CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

       Reina Benites Armenta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen

due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen.

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the

petition for review.

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Armenta’s motion to reopen,

where Armenta failed to comply with the threshold requirements set forth in

Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988), and the ineffective

assistance she alleges is not plain on the face of the record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft,

358 F.3d 592, 596-99 (9th Cir. 2004).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                           2                                    10-73430