Mei Feng Xu 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MEI FENG XU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74755
Agency No. A077-297-889
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Mei Feng Xu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen
removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Singh
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74755 2
v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Xu’s motion to reopen
because written notice of the hearing was mailed to Xu at the address of record,
and the motion was untimely filed nearly eight years after the issuance of the July
21, 2000, in absentia order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii).
To the extent Xu alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, we lack
jurisdiction to review that contention because Xu failed to raise it before the BIA
and therefore failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --