Svetlana Grigoryan v. Loretta E. Lynch

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 03 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SVETLANA GRIGORYAN, No. 13-70803
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-448-874
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Svetlana Grigoryan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
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).
1 13-70803
for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785,
791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Grigoryan’s motion to
reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where she failed to establish
plausible grounds for the relief she seeks. See Serrano v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 1317,
1319 (9th Cir. 2006) (“To assert a valid due process ineffective assistance of
counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice; namely, he must show that
he has ‘plausible grounds for relief.’” (citation omitted)). Contrary to Grigoryan’s
contention, the BIA did not engage in impermissible fact-finding in its prejudice
analysis. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv) (limiting fact-finding in appeals).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua
sponte authority to reopen Grigoryan’s removal proceedings. See Mejia-
Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 13-70803