Hermilo Moreno-Liconar 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HERMILO MORENO-LICONAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72968
Agency No. A095-745-249
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012**
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Hermilo Moreno-Liconar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen removal
proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
FILED
AUG 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-72968 2
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Reyes
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Moreno-Liconar’s motion
to reopen for failure to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada,
19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), where the ineffective assistance was not plain on
the face of the record. See Reyes, 358 F.3d at 597-99.
We lack jurisdiction to review Moreno-Liconar’s contention regarding the
transcript from his removal hearing because he failed to raise that issue before the
BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review
contentions not raised before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --