Case ID: f-appx_588/html/0607-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHUNJI JIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-71875.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 15, 2014.
    Jay Ho Lee, Esquire, Jay Ho Lee Law Offices LLC, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Joseph D. Hardy, Jr., Esquire, Trial, 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: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Chunji Jin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her motion to reconsider the IJ’s prior denial of Jin’s motion to reopen and rescind her in absentia removal order. We have jurisdiction-under 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 the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Jin’s motion to reconsider where the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the IJ’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(2); Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 791 (the court reverses the denial of a motion to reconsider only if the BIA acted “arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law”). Contrary to Jin’s assertion, the agency sufficiently addressed her contention regarding her former counsel’s statements in response to her allegations of ineffective assistance.

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