Mario Santos-Salado; Wendy Robles-Palma 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 concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO SANTOS-SALADO; WENDY
ROBLES-PALMA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73102
Agency Nos. A079-523-218
A079-523-219
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Mario Santos-Salado and Wendy Robles-Palma, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen and reconsider. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8
FILED
JAN 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LR/Research 07-73102 2
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen
and reconsider, and review de novo claims of due process violations, including
ineffective assistance of counsel claims, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785,
791-92 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen regarding ineffective assistance of counsel because petitioners failed to
comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637
(BIA 1988), and the ineffective assistance is not plain on the face of the record.
See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597-99 (9th Cir. 2004).
In their opening brief, petitioners fail to challenge the BIA’s decision
denying their motion to reconsider and have waived any challenge to the BIA’s
determination that they failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s
prior order denying their motion to reopen. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d
1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --