
    Roberto Antonio Jovel SANTOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70199.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 24, 2018.
    
    Filed Aug. 1, 2013.
    Zulu Ali, Zulu Abdullah Ali, Riverside, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Nancy Ellen Friedman, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit'Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Roberto Antonio Jovel Santos, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges’ (“U”) decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. 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 claims of due process violations. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Santos’ motion to reopen where Santos did not submit any supporting materials with his motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3) (“Any motion to reopen for the purpose of acting on an application for relief must be accompanied by the appropriate application for relief and all supporting documentation.”).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Santos’ motion to reopen alleging ineffective assistance by the attorney who represented him before the IJ, where he failed to comply with the threshold requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the alleged ineffective assistance was not “plain on the face of the administrative record.” See Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 525 (9th Cir.2000).

In light of our disposition, we need not reach Santos’ remaining contentions.

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