22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T52c,MEMORANDUM Ignacio Morfin-Bernabe and Alicia Per ez-Lopez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings 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 motion to reopen and review de novo due process claims. Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir.2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. We agree with the BIA’s determination that petitioners failed to comply with the requirements in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and did not establish that former counsel’s performance "violated due process. See id. at 596. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua sponte power. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002). Petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to consider the evidence newly submitted with their motion is not supported by the record. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T563,

MEMORANDUM

Ignacio Morfin-Bernabe and Alicia Per ez-Lopez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings 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 motion to reopen and review de novo due process claims. Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir.2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We agree with the BIA’s determination that petitioners failed to comply with the requirements in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and did not establish that former counsel’s performance "violated due process. See id. at 596. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua sponte power. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

Petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to consider the evidence newly submitted with their motion is not supported by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.