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NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 26 2013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