Tania Raquel Molina v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TANIA RAQUEL MOLINA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72104
Agency No. A089-853-646
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2014**
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Tania Raquel Molina, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny
in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
FILED
APR 11 2014
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.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

In her opening brief, Molina fails to address, and therefore has waived any
challenge to, the BIA’s reasons for denying her December 2010 motion to reopen
to apply for adjustment of status. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072,
1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the
opening brief).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Molina’s sole contention that she suffered
ineffective assistance of counsel, where she did not raise this issue before the BIA
in her December 2010 motion to reopen and therefore failed to exhaust her
administrative remedies in this petition for review. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d
1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s October 24, 2011, order
denying Molina’s motion to reconsider and reopen based on ineffective assistance
of counsel because she failed to timely petition this court for review of that
decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.
2003).
In light of our disposition, we need not consider Molina’s contention that the
rationale of Mezo v. Holder, 615 F.3d 616 (6th Cir. 2010), applies to her case,
because this concerns her ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which is not
11-72104 2

-- 2 of 3 --

properly before us.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
11-72104 3

-- 3 of 3 --