Praphawadee Kontong v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PRAPHAWADEE KONTONG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73402
Agency No. A095-723-150
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Praphawadee Kontong, a native and citizen of Thailand, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to remand
and dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of
FILED
OCT 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-73402 2
law, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005), and for abuse
of discretion the denial of motions to remand, Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th
Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA properly concluded that Kontong failed to establish she had been
prejudiced by former counsel’s representation because she did not explain how a
timely filed application for cancellation of removal may have affected the outcome
of her removal proceedings. See Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855,
858-59 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Kontong did not provide any evidence of
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her lawful permanent resident
mother to show she could qualify for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(b)(1).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kontong’s motion to remand
for adjustment of status based on her marriage to a United States citizen where the
evidence submitted did not show a strong likelihood of a bona fide marriage. See
Malhi, 336 F.3d at 993-94.
We lack jurisdiction to review Kontong’s contention that the IJ abused her
discretion by deeming Kontong’s application for cancellation of removal as
abandoned because Kontong failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby

-- 2 of 3 --

08-73402 3
failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Kontong’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --