Enkelejda Poci v. Jefferson Sessions , 681 F. App'x 649 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ENKELEJDA POCI, No. 15-73661
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-564-759
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Enkelejda Poci, a native and citizen of Albania, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for a waiver under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1186a(c)(4). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
abuse of discretion the BIA’s decision to summarily dismiss an appeal. Singh v.
Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Poci’s appeal
where she indicated on her notice of appeal that a separate written brief would be
filed but failed to file a brief, and her notice of appeal lacked sufficient specificity
regarding the grounds for appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A); cf. Garcia-
Cortez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 749, 752 (9th Cir. 2004) (the BIA may summarily
dismiss an alien’s appeal if an alien submits no separate written brief or statement
to the BIA and inadequately informs the BIA of what aspects of the decision were
allegedly incorrect and why).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Poci’s contentions regarding the merits of
her case, her ex-husband’s testimony, and the alleged ineffective assistance of
counsel, because she failed to raise these contentions before the BIA and thereby
failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071,
1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised
before the agency); Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (new
evidence may be added to the record through a motion to reopen with the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 15-73661