The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
11-70817•Javier Amado-Ortega, a.k.a. Javier Amador Ortega v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
11-70817Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSep 17, 2012
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JAVIER AMADO-ORTEGA, a.k.a. Javier
Amador Ortega,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70817
Agency No. A096-210-714
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Javier Amado-Ortega, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s removal order. We dismiss the petition for review.
FILED
SEP 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
11-70817 2
We lack jurisdiction over this petition for review because Amado-Ortega
failed to establish that his waiver of the right to appeal the immigration judge’s
decision was not knowing and considered. See Biwot v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1094,
1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (where a waiver of appeal was not knowing and considered,
the waiver does not strip us of jurisdiction). Amado-Ortega was represented by
counsel, and raised no ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Magallanes-
Damian v. INS, 783 F.2d 931, 934 (9th Cir. 1986) (aliens “are generally bound by
the conduct of their attorneys, including admissions made by them, absent
egregious circumstances).
To the extent that Amado-Ortega now raises an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim, we lack jurisdiction to consider this claim because it was not raised
before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
In light of our disposition, we do not consider Amado-Ortega’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.