eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2015-09

Medardo Rivas-Campos v. Loretta E. Lynch , 616 F. App'x 350 ( 2015 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                             FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           SEP 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MEDARDO ARISTIDES RIVAS-                          No. 14-70374
CAMPOS,
Agency No. A029-148-096
Petitioner,
v.                                               MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 21, 2015**
Before:        REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Medardo Aristides Rivas-Campos, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review for abuse of discretion the 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 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rivas-Campos’s motion to
reopen as untimely, where it was filed over 90 days after the agency’s final order
of removal, see
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(2), Rivas-Campos failed to comply with the
procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada,
    19 I. & N. Dec. 637
     (BIA 1988), and
the alleged ineffective assistance was not plain on the face of the administrative
record, see Reyes v. Ashcroft,
    358 F.3d 592
    , 596-99 (9th Cir. 2004) (no abuse of
discretion in denying motion to reopen where alien failed to comply with Lozada
and ineffectiveness was not plain on the face of the record).
We do not consider Rivas-Campos’s unexhausted contention that he has
now substantially complied with the procedural requirements of Lozada. See
Fisher v. INS,
    79 F.3d 955
    , 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (the court’s review is
limited to the administrative record); Tijani v. Holder,
    628 F.3d 1071
    , 1080 (9th
Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s
administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Rivas-Campos’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2                                   14-70374