Juana Ines Salazar-Armenta 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JUANA INES SALAZAR-ARMENTA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70389
Agency No. A074-820-499
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Juana Ines Salazar-Armenta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v.
FILED
OCT 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-70389 2
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Salazar-Armenta’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 she alleges is not
plain on the face of the record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 596-99 (9th
Cir. 2004).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua
sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Mejia-
Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --