Jose Joel Aguiar Aguilar; Johana Guadalupe Aguiar 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSE JOEL AGUIAR AGUILAR;
JOHANA GUADALUPE AGUIAR,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 07-74210
08-75188
Agency Nos. A079-521-448
A079-521-449
MEMORANDUM*
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Joel Aguiar Aguilar and Johana Guadalupe Aguiar, natives and citizens
of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
orders denying their motions to reconsider and to reopen removal proceedings. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
SEP 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74210 2
BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400
F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petitions for review.
The BIA was within its discretion in denying petitioners’ June 25, 2007,
motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law
in the BIA’s May 23, 2007, decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-
Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).
The BIA was within its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen
on the ground that they failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter
of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988), where they did not file state bar
complaints or include sufficient evidence that they had informed the attorneys of
the allegations against them, and the ineffective assistance is not plain on the face
of the record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597-99 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --