N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT OSC AR ALEXANDER

C HAC ON, AKA Osc a r C ha c o n Ardon, Pe titioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 09-72815 Age n c y No. A094-213-022 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d April 22, 2015 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, B YB EE, a nd C HRISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Osc ar Ale xa

nde r C ha c on, a

native and c itiz e n of El Sa l va dor, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of his motion to re c onside r and re ope n re m ova l proc e e d ings. Our jurisdiction is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w



# F IL ED APR 30 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).for a

b use of disc re tion thede nia l of a m otion to re c onside r, Mohamme d v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 791(9th C ir. 2005), a n d we de ny

in pa rt a n d dismiss in pa rt the pe tition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion in deny ing C h a c on’ s m otion to re c o nside r, whe re he fa ile d to show a ny e rror of la

w or fa c t in theIJ’ s origina l re m ova l orde r, and ha s not e sta blishe d tha

t his de c ision to wai ve a

p pe a l of tha

t orde r wa s not knowing a

nd inte llige nt, whe re he wa s re p re se nte d by c ounse l, is bound by his c o unse l’ s ta c tic a l de c isions, a nd did not raise a

c la im of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l be fore the a ge nc y . Se e Magallane s-Damian v . IN

S, 783 F.2d 931, 934 (9th C ir. 1986), c f. Biw ot v . Gonzale

s , 403 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th C ir. 2005) (finding a

n inva lid a

ppe a l wa ive r whe re a pro se pe titioner did not unde rsta nd the m e aning of a

n a ppe a l). In a ddition, the a ge nc y did not a buse its disc re tion in c onstruing C ha c on’ s m otion a s a m otion to re c onside r. Se e8 C .F.R . § 1003.23(b)(2); Iturribarria v. IN S, 321 F.3d 889, 896 (9th C ir. 2003) (a m otion to re ope n is usually

ba se d upon ne w e vide n c e or a c h ange in fa c tua l c irc um s ta nc e , whe re a s a m o tion to re c onside r is a re que st tha

t the a ge n c y

re e xam ine its de c ision in light of additional le ga l a rgum e nts, a

c ha nge of la w, or a n a rgum e nt or a spe c t of the c a se whic h wa s ove rlooke d).

0 9 - 7 2 8 1 5 2W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r C ha c on’ s ne wly -ra ise d c la im of ine ffe c tive

a ssista nc e of c ounse l be c a

use it is une xha

uste d. S e e Tijani v . Holde r , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th C ir. 2010) (thec ourt la c ks jurisdic tion to c onside r le ga l c la im s not pre s e nte d in a

n a lie n’ s a dm inistra

tive proc e e dings). In light of this disposition, we do not re a c h C ha c on’ s re m a ining c onte ntions c onc e rning his e l i gibility

for re lie f from

re m o va l. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

0 9 - 7 2 8 1 5 3