FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESUS RODRIGUEZ ZENTENO; No. 07-75059
JUANA MARGARITA RODRIGUEZ;
MARIANO RODRIGUEZ MORENO, Agency Nos. A096-051-299
A096-051-300
Petitioners, A096-051-301
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Rodriguez Zenteno, Juana Margarita Rodriguez, and Mariano
Rodriguez Moreno, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of 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).
NHY/Research
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to remand and
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo due process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324
F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion
to remand, Ramirez-Alejandre v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 858, 874 (9th Cir. 2003) (en
banc). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion to
remand due to ineffective assistance of counsel because they failed to comply with
the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988),
and the ineffective assistance they allege is not plain on the face of the record. See
Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597-99 (9th Cir. 2004). It follows that
Petitioners’ due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process
claim).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion to
remand to introduce evidence because the BIA considered the evidence they
submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that it was
insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.
NHY/Research 2 07-75059
2002) (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is
“arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”).
Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
NHY/Research 3 07-75059