Alejandro Varona Alonzo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ALEJANDRO VARONA ALONZO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70061
Agency No. A077-216-024
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Alejandro Varona Alonzo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen based on
ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
SEP 18 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-70061 2
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Varona Alonzo’s motion to
reopen for failure to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada,
19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), where the ineffective assistance he alleges is not
plain on the face of the record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 596-99 (9th
Cir. 2004).
We do not consider the extra-record evidence submitted for the first time
with Varona Alonzo’s opening brief because the court’s review is limited to the
administrative record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --