Romana Martinez-Sandoval v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROMANA MARTINEZ-SANDOVAL, No. 10-70766
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-351-964
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Romana Martinez-Sandoval, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her
motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Mohammed v.
*
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).
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Martinez-Sandoval’s July
20, 2009, motion to reconsider under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (“A party . . . may
not seek reconsideration of a decision denying a previous motion to reconsider.”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez-Sandoval’s ineffective assistance
of counsel claim because she did not exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez-Sandoval’s challenges to the
agency’s underlying orders because this petition for review is not timely as to those
orders. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 10-70766