Hong Ling v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           SEP 17 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    HONG LING,                                        No. 11-70657
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A096-349-752
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted September 10, 2012 **
    Before:        WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Hong Ling, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
    of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen proceedings
    based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
    U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion a motion to reopen, and de novo
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    questions of law and claims of due process violations. Reyes v. Ashcroft, 
    358 F.3d 592
    , 595 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
    review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ling’s motion to reopen for
    failure to show a due process violation where Ling did not establish that her former
    attorney’s alleged actions regarding her birth certificate rendered her proceedings
    unfair. See Dent v. Holder, 
    627 F.3d 365
    , 373 (9th Cir. 2010).
    We lack jurisdiction to review Ling’s contention that the attorney who
    represented her before the BIA provided ineffective assistance because she failed
    to raise the issue before the BIA, and thereby failed to exhaust her administrative
    remedies. See Tijani v. Holder, 
    628 F.3d 1071
    , 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (no
    jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented before the BIA).
    Ling’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    2                                      11-70657
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-70657

Judges: Wardlaw, Clifton, Smith

Filed Date: 9/17/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024