Pablo Ivan Hernandez-Palacio 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
PABLO IVAN HERNANDEZ-PALACIO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71920
Agency No. A071-575-846
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Pablo Ivan Hernandez-Palacio, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motions to reconsider and reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
FILED
SEP 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71920 2
reopen or reconsider, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Hernandez-Palacio’s motion
to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to comply
with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA
1988), and the ineffective assistance he alleges is not plain on the face of the
record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597-99 (9th Cir. 2004).
In his opening brief, Hernandez-Palacio fails to address, and therefore has
waived any challenge to, the BIA’s determination that, construed as motion to
reconsider, the motion was untimely filed. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d
1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a
party’s opening brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --