Ana Ruth Elias-De Aleman; Ulises Adonay Aleman-Elias v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANA RUTH ELIAS-DE ALEMAN;
ULISES ADONAY ALEMAN-ELIAS,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71963
Agency Nos. A208-537-260
A208-537-261
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2023 **
Before: OWENS, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Ana Ruth Elias-De Aleman and Ulises Adonay Aleman-Elias, natives and
citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision
denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
* 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).
FILED
FEB 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Petitioners claim only that their BIA appeal
was tainted by ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioners make no other claim for
relief before this court. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny
the petition.
Petitioners raise their ineffective assistance of counsel claim in the first
instance in this court. Generally, ineffective assistance of counsel claims cannot be
brought without meeting the exhaustion requirement. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that § 1252(d)(1) “generally bars us, for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction, from reaching the merits of a legal claim not presented
in administrative proceedings below”); Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644
(9th Cir. 2012) (“[T]o the extent petitioners contend they received ineffective
assistance of counsel, we lack jurisdiction to review unexhausted claims that could
have been corrected by the BIA.”); Singh v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.
2007); Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004); Liu v. Waters, 55 F.3d
421, 424 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A petitioner must make a motion for the [Board] to reopen
before we will hold that he has exhausted his [ineffective assistance] claims.”). As
such, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the Petitioners’ claim. Id.
DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --