Case ID: f-appx_390/html/0040-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HUA JIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-3664-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Aug. 18, 2010.
    Hua Jin, pro se, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel; Theo Nickerson, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN, and DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Hua Jin, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of an August 11, 2009 order of the BIA denying her motion to reopen. In re Hua Jin, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Aug. 11, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam). An alien seeking to reopen proceedings may file one motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The alien must demonstrate that the evidence offered in support of the motion was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing. Id.

Here, the BIA reasonably denied Jin’s motion to reopen because she failed to demonstrate that the evidence of her former counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance was unavailable or could- not have been presented at her previous hearing. Id. Rather, that evidence was available at her removal proceedings, during which Jin admitted that she lied under oath at her bond proceeding upon the advice of her prior counsel and documents from the bond hearing were admitted into the record. Accordingly, as the BIA reasonably noted, Jin could have pursued an ineffective assistance of counsel claim either before the IJ in a motion to reopen or before the BIA. Thus, the BIA did not err in denying her motion because she failed to provide new, previously unavailable evidence. To the extent Jin now asserts an ineffective assistance of counsel claim against her second attorney, she failed to raise that claim with the agency. Thus, the claim is unexhausted and we lack jurisdiction to review it. Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 107 (2d Cir.2007).

For the foregoing, reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for.a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(b).