Ramon Cruz Reyes, et al v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 08-73778 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JAN 06 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAMON CRUZ REYES and OFELIA ROBLES DIAZ, No. 08-73778 Agency Nos. A079-524-999 A079-525-000 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2010 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Ramon Cruz Reyes and Ofelia Robles Diaz, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying their motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of * 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). a motion to reopen, Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners motion 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), because petitioners did not include any evidence that they had informed the attorneys of the allegations against them, and the alleged ineffective assistance is not plain on the face of the record. See Reyes, 358 F.3d at 584, 597-99. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners motion on the ground that the new evidence of their youngest daughter s health problems was untimely and did not fall within any exception to the time restrictions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 08-73778

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.