Lidia Marlene Velasquez- Cifuente v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIDIA MARLENE VELASQUEZ-
CIFUENTE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70145
Agency No. A074-803-757
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Lidia Marlene Velasquez-Cifuente, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen
FILED
DEC 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

removal proceedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Velasquez-Cifuente’s
motion to reopen where she failed to establish lack of proper notice. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(b)(5)(A), (c)(ii); cf. Dobrota v. INS, 311 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002)
(agency “may generally satisfy notice requirements by mailing notice of the
hearing to an alien . . . , or, if she is represented, to her attorney’s address of
record.”).
The agency also did not abuse its discretion in denying Velasquez-
Cifuente’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel where she
failed to comply with the threshold requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N.
Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the alleged ineffective assistance was not “plain on the
face of the administrative record.” See Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 525
(9th Cir. 2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
10-70145 2

-- 2 of 2 --