T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M I GU EL GO NZALEZ - RAM I RE Z, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 11- 71759 A ge nc yN o. A 092- 172- 236 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2012 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M i gue lG onz a l e z - R am i r e z , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

or r e v ie w o f

th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e m and ba s e d on i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t anc e of

c ouns e l , and di s m i s s i ng hi s appe a lf r om an i m m i g rat i o n j u d g e’ s (“ IJ”) rem o v alo rd er. O u r j u ri sd i ct i o n i s g o v ern edb y 8 

# FI LED DE C 21 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 71759 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e m an d , Mo vs is ia n v . A s h c r o ft , 395 F . 3d 1095, 1098 ( 9th C i r . 2005) , and r e vi e w de n o v o qu e s tio n s o f

law , Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 40 0 F . 3d78 5, 79 1-92 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) . We d i s m i s s i n p artan dd e n yi n p artth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. W e lac kjurisd icti o n to re v iew G o n za lez- R am irez ’s ch allen g e to th e I J’s rel i an ce o n th e F o rm I-2 1 3 , R eco rdo f D ep o rt ab l e A l i en , b ecau se h e fai l edt o rai se th e is s u e b e f

o r e th e B I A an dth e r e b yf a ile dto e x h au s t h is a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s . See T i j a n iv. H o lder, 628 F . 3d 1071, 1080 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( thi s c ourtl a c ks ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w c o n te n tio n s n o t r a is e db e f o r e th e B I A ) . W e a l s o l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the a ge nc y ’ s de ni a lof c anc e l l a t i on of r e m o v a l a s am a tte ro f

d is c r e tio n . See 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (2)( B )( i ). T he B I A di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on byde ny i ng G onz a l e z - R am i r e z ’ s m ot i on t o rem and w here he fa i l ed t o est abl i sh prej ud i ce fr om hi s c ou nsel ’ s a l l eged in e f f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e . See M oh am m ed , 40 0 F . 3dat79 3-94 (t o p re vai lon an i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t anc e of

c ouns e lc l a i m , pe t i t i one rm us ts how tha tc ouns e l ’ s a c t i ons m ayhave aff

ec t ed the ou t com e of the proceedi ng s) . I n lig h t o f

o u rd is p o s itio n , w e n e e dn o t a d d r e s s G o n z a le z - R am ir e z ’s c la im r e gar di ng c om pl i anc e w i th M atte rof L oz ada , 19 I. & N . D ec . 63 7 (B IA 19 88 ). P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D IS M IS S E D i n p art; D E N IE D i n p art.