Case ID: f-appx_479/html/0114-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Javier AMADO-ORTEGA, a.k.a. Javier Amador Ortega, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-70817.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 17, 2012.
    Thomas A. Lappin, Esquire, Law Office Of Thomas A. Lappin, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Charles S. Greene, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Javier Amado-Ortega, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction over this petition for review because Amado-Ortega failed to establish that his waiver of the right to appeal the immigration judge’s decision was not knowing and considered. See Biwot v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir.2005) (where a waiver of appeal was not knowing and considered, the waiver does not strip us of jurisdiction). Amado-Ortega was represented by counsel, and raised no ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Magallanes-Damian v. INS, 783 F.2d 931, 934 (9th Cir.1986) (aliens are generally bound by the conduct of their attorneys, including admissions made by them, absent egregious circumstances).

To the extent that Amado-Ortega now raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we lack jurisdiction to consider this claim because it was not raised before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

In light of our disposition, we do not consider Amado-Ortega’s remaining contentions.

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