Mario Alarcon Alvarez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARIO ALARCON ALVAREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74467
Agency No. A075-682-566
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.
Mario Alarcon Alvarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reconsider and reopen 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
FILED
SEP 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74467 2
motion to reconsider or reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th
Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Alarcon Alvarez’s motion to
reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the
BIA’s June 5, 2008, decision. See 8 C.F .R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Alarcon Alvarez’s motion to
reopen due to ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to comply with
the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (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).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Alarcon Alvarez’s contentions related to the
BIA’s June 5, 2008, and June 27, 2005, orders, because this petition for review is
not timely as to those orders. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.
2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --