Epifania Hernandez-Vite 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
EPIFANIA HERNANDEZ-VITE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72216
Agency No. A095-292-117
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Epifania Hernandez-Vite, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reopen removal proceedings 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
OCT 01 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-72216 2
a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005).
We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez-Vite’s motion to
reopen alleging ineffective assistance of counsel where she failed to comply with
the threshold requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988),
and the alleged ineffective assistance was not plain on the face of the
administrative record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 596-99 (9th Cir. 2004).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Hernandez-Vite’s remaining
contention regarding her eligibility for adjustment of status.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --