FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 29 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GILBERTO CARRANZA-PINEDA, No. 09-73018
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-630-126
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Gilberto Carranza-Pineda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective
assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions
of law. 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 Carranza-Pineda’s motion
to reopen because he failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of
Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the ineffective assistance he alleges
is not plain on the face of the record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597-99
(9th Cir. 2004).
Carranza-Pineda’s request under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(b)(3)(iii) is unavailing
because Carranza-Pineda’s voluntary departure period had expired before that
regulation took effect. See 73 Fed. Reg. 76,927, 76,936 (Dec. 18, 2008)
(regulation terminating a voluntary departure order upon filing of a motion to
reopen took effect on January 20, 2009, and does not apply retroactively).
We have no authority to reinstate voluntary departure. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1240.26(f).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-73018