Bertha Soto-De Tapia 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BERTHA SOTO-DE TAPIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71429
Agency No. A077-077-629
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 23, 2010**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Bertha Soto-De Tapia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to remand
based on ineffective 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
FILED
SEP 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-71429 2
remand. Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We
dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Soto-De Tapia’s contention that her
statements taken at the border violated 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c) because she failed to
exhaust this issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th
Cir. 2004).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Soto-De Tapia’s motion to
remand due to ineffective assistance of counsel because she failed to adequately
comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637
(BIA 1988), and the ineffective assistance she alleges is not plain on the face of the
record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597-99 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --