Case ID: f-appx_444/html/0931-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Romana MARTINEZ-SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70766.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 22, 2011.
    Romana Martinez-Sandoval, San Ber-nardino, CA, pro se.
    Dana Michelle Camilleri, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Romana Martinez-Sandoval, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Martinez-Sandoval’s July 20, 2009, motion to reconsider under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (“A party ... may not seek reconsideration of a decision denying a previous motion to reconsider.”).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez-Sandoval’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim because she did not exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

We also lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez-Sandoval’s challenges to the agency’s underlying orders because this petition for review is not timely as to those orders. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.