Douglas Aguilar v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed Douglas Aguilar’s appeal of a removal order, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction because Aguilar waived his right to appeal before the immigration judge (“IJ”). The BIA denied Aguilar’s subsequent motion to reopen or reconsider because Aguilar failed to comply with the requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). Aguilar petitions for review of both BIA decisions. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 .
Aguilar’s argument that the Lozada requirements are invalid because they were adopted by adjudication rather than rule-making is without merit. See SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 203 , 67 S.Ct. 1575 , 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947); City of Anaheim v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 723 F.2d 656 , 659 (9th Cir.1984). Aguilar made no attempt to comply with any of the Lozada requirements. Further, it is not “obvious and undisputed on the face of the record” that Aguilar’s counsel was ineffective. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597 (9th Cir.2004). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Aguilar’s motion to reopen on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel.