Christianh Olubunmi Sutton v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTIANH OLUBUNMI SUTTON,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 17-73055
17-70506
Agency No. A095-701-670
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Christianh Olubunmi Sutton, a
native and citizen of the United Kingdom, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s order denying her application under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B) for waiver
* 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
MAR 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-73055
of the joint filing requirement to remove the conditional basis of her lawful
permanent resident status, and denying her motion to reopen.1 We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen, and we review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA properly rejected Sutton’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim,
where she failed to show prejudice resulting from her prior counsel’s alleged
ineffective assistance. See Martinez-Hernandez v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1086, 1088
(9th Cir. 2015) (“A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a showing of
inadequate performance and prejudice.”).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sutton’s motion to reopen,
where she failed to show prima facie eligibility for an extreme hardship waiver
under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(A). See 8 C.F.R. § 1216.5(e)(1) (“[A]ny removal
from the United States is likely to result in a certain degree of hardship, and . . .
only in those cases where the hardship is extreme should the application for a
waiver be granted.”); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (the
BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the
1 These BIA orders were subsequent to this court’s remand in Sutton v. Lynch, No.
14-73472, 656 Fed.Appx. 343 (9th Cir. 2016).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-73055
relief sought). The record does not support Sutton’s contention that the BIA failed
to consider relevant evidence. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --