Fady Najib Dandache v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
CG/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FADY NAJIB DANDACHE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74836
Agency No. A046-103-489
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Fady Najib Dandache, a native and citizen of Lebanon, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand
and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
FILED
NOV 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

CG/Research 08-74836 2
motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364
F.3d 1013, 1018 (9th Cir. 2004), and review de novo claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny the petition for review.
Dandache has not raised, and therefore waives, any challenge to the BIA’s
denial of his motion to remand. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-
60 (9th Cir. 1996).
We agree with the BIA that Dandache did not substantially comply with the
threshold requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA
1988), and has not established prejudice from the alleged ineffective assistance of
counsel. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (adopting Lozada
requirements, including “an indication that a complaint has been lodged with the
bar, or reasons explaining why not”); Azanor, 364 F.3d at 1023 (requiring
prejudice to succeed in claim of ineffective assistance of counsel). Accordingly,
the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --