NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 04 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
YU LE WANG and LIANG CHEN, No. 07-72018
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A079-630-000
A079-629-999
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 2, 2011**
Pasadena, California
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners Yu Le Wang and Liang Chen, natives and citizens of China, seek
review of the BIA’s decision dismissing their appeal of the IJ’s denial of their
motion to reopen their removal proceedings. We review for abuse of discretion the
*
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).
-2-
BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Lo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 934, 937 (9th Cir.
2003). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition.
I. Lack of Notice
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to reopen the proceedings
on the basis of lack of notice. The notice sent to the most recent address provided
by petitioner was sufficient to satisfy the notice requirements of 8 U.S.C. §
1229(a)(2)(A). See Popa v. Holder, 571 F.3d 890, 897-98 (9th Cir. 2009).
II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it held that petitioners failed to
make a case for reopening their proceedings based on ineffective assistance of
counsel. Petitioners did not demonstrate that they were prejudiced by counsel’s
actions. They did not comply with the requirements in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. &
N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), or demonstrate “clear and obvious” ineffectiveness that
would justify an exception from those requirements. See Castillo-Perez v. INS,
212 F.3d 518, 525-26 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Lo, 341 F.3d at 937. Because
petitioners failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, tolling of the
deadline for filing a motion to reopen was not warranted. See Iturribarria v. INS,
321 F.3d 889, 897-98 (9th Cir. 2003).
The petition for review is DENIED.