N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M AR IA VALLES DE M ENDEZ,

Pe t i tione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 13-73385 Age n c y No. A095-670-165 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 Se pte m

be r 27, 2016 * * B e fore : TASHIM A , SILVER M AN, a nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. M aria Va lle s de M e nde z , a

native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions pro se for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing he r m o tion to re ope n . Our jurisdic t ion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w for a buse of 

# FIL ED OCT 04 2016 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).disc re tion thede nia l of a m otion to re ope n . Mohamme d v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th C i r. 2005). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe t ition for re vie w. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing Va lle s de M e nde z ’ m otion to re ope n, whe re she fa ile d to e sta blish tha t he r form e r attorne y ’ s fa ilure to file an a pplic ation for a wa ive r unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1182(h) (“ 212(h) wa ive r” ) c onstitute d ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l. Se e Mohamme d , 400 F.3d a t 793 (“pe t itione r m ust de m onstra

t e first tha

t c o unse l fa ile d to pe rform with suffic ie nt c om pe te nc e , and, se c o nd, tha

t she wa s pre

j udic e d by c ounse l ’ s pe rform anc e ” ). Va lle de M e n de z c onte nds tha

t she wa s e ligiblefor a

212(h) wa ive r be c a

use she wa s not a dm itte d , but ra

the r wa s gra

nte d a djustm e nt of sta

tus a nd, the re fore , the re quire m e nt tha

t a n a p plic ant for a

212(h) wa ive r be pre s e nt for se ve n y e ars a fte r

“ a d m ission”should not ha

ve ba rre d he r e ligibility . Howe ve r, at the tim e of he r proc e e dings, the re l e va

nt pre c e de nt c onflic te d with Va lle de M e nde z ’ c onte ntion that an a djustm e nt of sta

tus did not qua

lify a s an a d m ission for the

purpose s of a 212(h) wa ive r. Se e , e .g. , M atte r of Rosas-Ramire

z , 22 I. & N. De c . 616, 623 (B IA 1999) (a lie n “ wa s ‘ a d

m itte d’ to the Unite d

State s whe n he r status wa s a d juste d to that of ‘ a n a lie n la w fully a dm itte d for pe rm ane nt re side nc e ’ ” be c a use

“ [a ] dm issions also oc c ur a fte r e ntry through theproc e ss of a djustm e nt of sta tus” (quoting 8 U.S.C . § 1255a (b))). 1 3 - 7 3 3 8 5 2To the e xte nt Va lle de M e nde z c onte nds tha t a funda m e nta l c ha

nge in la w, re pre se nte d by

this c ourt’ s de c ision in N e gre te -Ramire

z v . Holde r , 741 F.3d 1047 (9th C ir. 2014), wa

rrants re o p e ning of he r proc e e dings, wela c k jurisdic tion ove r that une xha uste d c onte ntion, a

nd note tha

t he r a ppropria te re c o urse is to filea m otion to re o pe n b e fore the B IA ba se d on a funda m e nta l c ha

nge in la w. Se 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 se nte d in a n a lie n’ s a dm i nistra

tive proc e e dings be fore the a ge nc y ); Matte r of G-D- , 22 I. & N. De c . 1132, 1134 (B IA 1999) (theB IA m ay e xe rc ise its sua

sponte a uthority to re ope n whe re the re ha s be e n a

funda m e nta l c ha nge in la w). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 3 - 7 3 3 8 5 3