Case ID: f-appx_423/html/0725-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sussan NG; Lin Xie, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74081.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 22, 2011.
    Sussan Ng, Seatac, WA, pro se.
    Maurice Lamont Chenier, Esquire, Law Office of Maurice Chenier Litigation/Appellate, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners. Lin Xie, Seatac, WA, pro se.
    R. Alexander Goring, Esquire, Michelle Gorden Latour, Esquire, Assistant Director, 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: FARRIS, 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

Sussan Ng and Lin Xie, natives of China and citizens of Australia, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and de novo claims of due process violations, including ineffective assistance of counsel 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.

The record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners timely extended or changed their status prior to the expiration of their nonimmigrant visas on June 30, 2005. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1999) (a contrary result is not compelled where there is “[t]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The BIA correctly concluded that petitioners’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails because they have not demonstrated prejudice. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).

We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ unexhausted contention that they are entitled to equitable tolling. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).

To the extent it is raised, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s January 29, 2008, order denying petitioners’ motion to reconsider because they failed to timely petition this court for review of that decision. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unavailing.

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.