MUSA SULE, AKA James Matlock; MERIAMU OSENI, AKA Janice Sule, AKA Meriamu Sule v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MUSA SULE, AKA James Matlock;
MERIAMU OSENI, AKA Janice Sule,
AKA Meriamu Sule,
Petitioners,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71339
Agency Nos. A027-579-911
A071-784-561
MEMORANDUM*
MERIAMU OSENI, AKA Mero Oseni,
AKA Janice Sule, AKA Meriamu Sule,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70014
Agency No. A071-784-561
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
FILED
OCT 09 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 4 --

Submitted October 7, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and McKEOWN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit
Judges.
Musa Sule and Meriamu Oseni petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) March 30, 2010 denial of their joint motion to
reopen proceedings to seek adjustment of status, alleging that due process
violations occurred and that equitable tolling applies, based on denial of the right
to counsel and ineffective assistance of counsel. Oseni separately petitions for
review of the BIA’s December 21, 2010 denial of her motion for reconsideration of
the March 30, 2010 order. We deny both petitions for review.
We review the BIA’s ruling on a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion,
while questions of law such as due process violations are reviewed de novo.
Hernandez v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir. 2008). A motion to reopen
BIA proceedings “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the
final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be
reopened,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), unless equitable tolling applies.
Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1190 (9th Cir. 2001). The BIA issued its
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2

-- 2 of 4 --

final administrative decision on May 19, 2004, and thus Sule and Oseni’s
September 14, 2009, motion to reopen was untimely by about five years.
Although we generally have jurisdiction over “appeals from the [BIA’s]
denial of a motion to reopen a removal proceeding,” Mata v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct.
2150, 2154 (2015), “[w]e lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in
an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA,” Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d
1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010). Because both Sule and Oseni failed to raise before the
BIA their claims of denial of the right to counsel and ineffective assistance of
counsel by prior counsel Michael Kramer, we lack jurisdiction to review those
claims. We likewise lack jurisdiction over Sule’s equitable tolling arguments
because he failed to present them in the joint motion to reopen before the BIA.
In her motion for reconsideration, Oseni raised equitable tolling based on
prior counsel Sarah Jones’s alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, giving us
jurisdiction over that claim. The BIA did not err in denying the motion because
Oseni failed to show prejudice resulting from the alleged ineffective assistance.
See Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1226 (9th Cir. 2002). Oseni requested
that the BIA reopen her proceedings to seek adjustment of status based on a visa
petition filed by her adult daughter, who did not turn 21 (the age of eligibility to
file such a visa petition) until May 6, 2007. Thus, even if Oseni had filed a motion
3

-- 3 of 4 --

to reopen immediately after she became eligible for adjustment of status, the
motion would have been untimely by nearly three years.
PETITION DENIED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --