Daniel Maingi Kingoo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DANIEL MAINGI KINGOO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71203
Agency No. A097-102-876
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Maingi Kingoo, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen
proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
APR 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s decision,
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the
petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Kingoo’s motion to
reopen because Kingoo did not comply with the threshold requirements of Matter
of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), at the time he filed his motion with the
IJ, and the alleged ineffective assistance was not “plain on the face of the
administrative record.” Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 525 (9th Cir. 2000).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Kingoo’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --