Case ID: f-appx_677/html/0445-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

EUN YOUNG KIM, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-72118
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 22, 2017
    Gary G. Singh, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Gary G. Singh, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner
    OIL, Anthony Ogden Pottinger, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eun Young Kim, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

To the extent Kim challenges the BIA’s denial of her ineffective assistance of counsel claim against the attorney who entered her pleadings, the BIA did not err in concluding that she failed to show eligibility for adjustment of status. See id. at 793-94 (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice); 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2) (listing eligibility requirements for adjustment of status).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Kim’s unexhausted contentions that she was eligible for cancellation of removal, that the IJ violated due process by allegedly failing to inform her regarding eligibility for adjustment of status and exhibiting bias towards her, and that translation problems led to a due process violation. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA). To the extent Kim contends attorneys Takeno and Egan provided ineffective assistance of counsel, we also lack jurisdiction to review that unexhausted contention^ See id.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.