Ignacio Morfin-Bernabe; 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).
SS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IGNACIO MORFIN-BERNABE; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72104
Agency Nos. A095-591-568
A095-591-569
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Ignacio Morfin-Bernabe and Alicia Perez-Lopez, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective
FILED
JAN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

SS/Research 07-72104 2
assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo due
process claims. Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
We agree with the BIA’s determination that petitioners failed to comply with
the requirements in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and did not
establish that former counsel’s performance violated due process. See id. at 596.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua
sponte power. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
Petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to consider the evidence newly
submitted with their motion is not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --