Mario Alarcon Alvarez v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 08-74467 (9th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 23 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS MARIO ALARCON ALVAREZ, Petitioner, No. 08-74467 Agency No. A075-682-566 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Mario Alarcon Alvarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying his motion to reconsider and reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a * 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). motion to reconsider or reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Alarcon Alvarez s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA s June 5, 2008, decision. See 8 C.F .R. § 1003.2(b)(1). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Alarcon Alvarez s motion to reopen due to ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the ineffective assistance he alleges is not plain on the face of the record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597-99 (9th Cir. 2004). We lack jurisdiction to consider Alarcon Alvarez s contentions related to the BIA s June 5, 2008, and June 27, 2005, orders, because this petition for review is not timely as to those orders. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 08-74467

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.