Leydi Mancia v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEYDI MANCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73336
Agency No. A089-981-473
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Leydi Mancia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings held in
absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
FEB 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981,
985 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Mancia’s motion to
reopen where she failed to overcome the presumption of effective delivery of her
notice of hearing, see id. at 986-88, and failed to establish that the alleged
ineffective assistance of an immigration consultant constituted an exceptional
circumstance warranting rescission of her in absentia removal order, cf. Monjaraz-
Munoz v. INS, 327 F.3d 892, 896 (9th Cir. 2003) (petitioner must show the alleged
ineffective assistance was the cause of her failure to appear for her hearing).
The agency also did not abuse its discretion in denying Mancia’s motion to
reopen based on the alleged ineffective assistance of her two former attorneys
where she failed to comply with the threshold requirements of Matter of Lozada,
19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and she does not contend that the alleged
ineffective assistance was “plain on the face of the administrative record.” See
Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 525 (9th Cir. 2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-73336

-- 2 of 2 --