Lidia Velasquez-Cifuente v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 550 F. App'x 515 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          DEC 26 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    LIDIA MARLENE VELASQUEZ-                         No. 10-70145
    CIFUENTE,
    Agency No. A074-803-757
    Petitioner,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted December 17, 2013**
    Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    Lidia Marlene Velasquez-Cifuente, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
    petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her
    appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her 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).
    removal proceedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    .
    We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v.
    Gonzales, 
    400 F.3d 785
    , 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
    The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Velasquez-Cifuente’s
    motion to reopen where she failed to establish lack of proper notice. See 8 U.S.C.
    § 1229a(b)(5)(A), (c)(ii); cf. Dobrota v. INS, 
    311 F.3d 1206
    , 1211 (9th Cir. 2002)
    (agency “may generally satisfy notice requirements by mailing notice of the
    hearing to an alien . . . , or, if she is represented, to her attorney’s address of
    record.”).
    The agency also did not abuse its discretion in denying Velasquez-
    Cifuente’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel where she
    failed to comply with the threshold 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 Castillo-Perez v. INS, 
    212 F.3d 518
    , 525
    (9th Cir. 2000).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                        10-70145
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-70145

Citation Numbers: 550 F. App'x 515

Judges: Goodwin, Graber, Wallace

Filed Date: 12/26/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/31/2023