Artemia Martinez-Meza v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTEMIA MARTINEZ-MEZA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70577
Agency No. A079-287-473
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 25, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: TASHIMA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Artemia Martinez-Meza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to
reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we review the decision for an abuse of
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 28 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
discretion. We deny the petition.
The BIA’s denial of Martinez-Meza’s motion did not constitute an abuse of
discretion. In general, a movant seeking reopening based on ineffective assistance
of counsel grounds must substantially comply with the procedural requirements of
Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
592, 596 (9th Cir. 2004). When “[t]he face of the record shows a clear and
obvious case of ineffective assistance of counsel,” however, the Lozada
requirements are not dispositive. Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 526
(9th Cir. 2000). Here, it is undisputed that Martinez-Meza did not comply with the
Lozada requirements. And, despite her suggestion to the contrary, ineffective
assistance of counsel is not clear from the face of the record. Thus, the BIA did
not err in denying her motion for failure to comply with Lozada.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --