Eun Kyeong Seo 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EUN KYEONG SEO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71337
Agency No. A098-266-275
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Eun Kyeong Seo, a native and citizen of Korea, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
FILED
DEC 07 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LA/Research 07-71337 2
immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In her opening brief, Seo fails to address, and therefore has waived any
challenge to, the BIA’s determination that she was not entitled to a continuance.
See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
This court lacks jurisdiction over the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services’ (“USCIS”) determinations regarding U Visas. See Ramirez
Sanchez v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1254, 1255 -1256 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam)
(USCIS has sole jurisdiction over the issuance of U Visa petitions); see also 8
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U)(i)(I).
We lack jurisdiction to review Seo’s contention regarding the alleged
ineffective assistance of her prior counsel because she did not raise that issue
before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --