Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, and denies Monzon-Yanes' request for oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Alien, a citizen of Guatemala, petitioned for review of the dismissal of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. The Court of Appeals held that Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) properly denied motion.
Petition denied.
Page 282.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Elmer Noe Monzon-Yanes, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissing his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Because the transitional rules apply, see Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), we have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We review for an abuse of discretion, Shaar v. INS, 141 F.3d 953, 955 (9th Cir.1998), and deny the petition.
Monzon-Yanes contends that the BIA should have granted his untimely motion to reopen because he was inadequately represented by an attorney imposter. The BIA properly denied Monzon-Yanes' motion because he admitted that he received notice of the deportation hearing six months prior to the date, and failed to present sufficient evidence to the BIA to show that he acted with due diligence to preserve his claim or satisfied the procedural requisites for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1225-27 (9th Cir.2002) (applying the ineffective assistance of counsel elements to claim against non-attorney).
We have not considered exhibits Monzon-Yanes' submitted to this court that were not part of the administrative record. See Fed. R.App.P. 10; Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 293 n .2 (9th Cir.1990).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.