Ernesto Gomez Contreras 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERNESTO GOMEZ CONTRERAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73552
Agency No. A079-525-648
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Ernesto Gomez Contreras, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
APR 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-73552 2
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785,
791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gomez Contreras’s motion
to reopen because he failed to demonstrate that the evidence he submitted was
previously unavailable. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(a) and (c); Bhasin v. Gonzales,
423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir. 2005).
Moreover, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in requiring Gomez Contreras
to comply with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), as a
prerequisite to claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. See Reyes v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 592, 598-99 (9th Cir. 2004) (approving Lozada requirements when
alleged ineffectiveness is not clear from the record). This is not a case in which
“counsel’s ineffective assistance was obvious and undisputed on the face of the
record.” Id. at 597.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --