Muli Zhang 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 is case suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JTK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MULI ZHANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-73852
Agency No. A070-163-432
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Muli Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
decision denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in
FILED
JAN 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JTK/Research 06-73852 2
absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse
of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889,
894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Zhang’s motion for failure to
establish exceptional circumstances because Zhang did not satisfy the requirements
set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the alleged
ineffective assistance provided by his first attorney was not “obvious and
undisputed on the face of the record.” Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597-98
(9th Cir. 2004); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(A)(1).
Zhang’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --