Fernando Abel Huerta Cacho; Sandra Rivero Frayssinet 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FERNANDO ABEL HUERTA CACHO;
SANDRA RIVERO FRAYSSINET,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74421
Agency Nos. A095-190-477
A095-190-478
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Fernando Abel Huerta Cacho, and Sandra Rivero Frayssinet, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order denying their appeal, which the BIA construed as a motion to reopen
FILED
APR 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74421 2
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Reyes v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen based on its finding that, even if the motion was timely, petitioners failed to
satisfy the procedural requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec.
637, 689 (BIA 1988), and the ineffective assistance they allege is not plain on the
face of the record. See id. at 597-99.
The petitioners contention the BIA erred by denying the motion to reopen
without out considering that it was a joint request to reopen. We reject this
contention because it is belied by the record – the government did not join in the
request to reopen.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --