Filip Baranski 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).
KS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILIP BARANSKI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70815
Agency No. A027-008-521
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.
Filip Baranski, a native and citizen of Poland, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motions to reopen and reconsider,
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KS/Research 07-70815 2
and denying his second motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d
960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Baranski fails to address, and therefore has waived any
challenge to, the BIA’s determination that the IJ lacked jurisdiction over his
motions to reopen and reconsider. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
Construing Baranski’s appeal as a second motion to reopen based on
ineffective assistance of counsel, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
the motion because Baranski failed to comply with the requirements set forth in
Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the ineffective assistance
was not plain on the face of the record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597
(9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --