Hong Ling 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HONG LING,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70657
Agency No. A096-349-752
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.
Hong Ling, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen proceedings
based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion a motion to reopen, and de novo
FILED
SEP 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-70657 2
questions of law and claims of due process violations. Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
592, 595 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ling’s motion to reopen for
failure to show a due process violation where Ling did not establish that her former
attorney’s alleged actions regarding her birth certificate rendered her proceedings
unfair. See Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 373 (9th Cir. 2010).
We lack jurisdiction to review Ling’s contention that the attorney who
represented her before the BIA provided ineffective assistance because she failed
to raise the issue before the BIA, and thereby failed to exhaust her administrative
remedies. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (no
jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented before the BIA).
Ling’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --