FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IGNACIO MORFIN-BERNABE; et al., No. 07-72104
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A095-591-568
A095-591-569
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Ignacio Morfin-Bernabe and Alicia Perez-Lopez, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective
*
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).
SS/Research
assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo due
process claims. Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
We agree with the BIA’s determination that petitioners failed to comply with
the requirements in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and did not
establish that former counsel’s performance violated due process. See id. at 596.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua
sponte power. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
Petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to consider the evidence newly
submitted with their motion is not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
SS/Research 2 07-72104