
    Gilberto CARRANZA-PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-73018.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed June 29, 2011.
    
      Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Stender & Lappin, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jeffrey Lawrence Menkin, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gilberto Carranza-Pineda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 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 a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Carranza-Pineda’s motion to reopen 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).

Carranza-Pineda’s request under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(b)(3)(iii) is unavailing because Carranza-Pineda’s voluntary departure period had expired before that regulation took effect. See 73 Fed.Reg. 76,927, 76,936 (Dec. 18, 2008) (regulation terminating a voluntary departure order upon filing of a motion to reopen took effect on January 20, 2009, and does not apply retroactively).

We have no authority to reinstate voluntary departure. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(f).

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