RAMON CRUZ REYES and OFELIA ROBLES DIAZ 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RAMON CRUZ REYES and OFELIA
ROBLES DIAZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73778
Agency Nos. A079-524-999
A079-525-000
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Ramon Cruz Reyes and Ofelia Robles Diaz, natives and citizens of Mexico,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
their motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
FILED
JAN 06 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-73778 2
a motion to reopen, Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir. 2004), and we
deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion on the
ground that they failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of
Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988), because petitioners did not include
any evidence that they had informed the attorneys of the allegations against them,
and the alleged ineffective assistance is not plain on the face of the record. See
Reyes, 358 F.3d at 584, 597-99.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion on the
ground that the new evidence of their youngest daughter’s health problems was
untimely and did not fall within any exception to the time restrictions. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --