IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-60014

Summary Calendar

NDEYE MAGATTE THIAM,

Petitioner

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A079 011 230

Before JONES, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ndeye Magatte Thiam, a native and citizen of Senegal, petitions for 

review of the denial of a motion to reopen her removal proceedings. In the 

timely motion, Thiam claimed eligibility for special rule cancellation of removal 

based on allegations that she had been a battered spouse during her former 

marriage to a United States citizen. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), 

in denying the motion, concluded that Thiam had failed to show that the

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 13, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-60014 Document: 00514233950 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2017
No. 16-60014

2

evidence supporting her abuse claim was previously unavailable and could not 

have been discovered or presented during her earlier removal proceedings. 

Additionally, the BIA concluded that Thiam had not established prima facie 

eligibility for any form of relief.

First, Thiam argues in this court that her prior attorneys rendered 

ineffective assistance during her immigration proceedings. We lack 

jurisdiction to consider these claims due to Thiam’s failure to exhaust her 

administrative remedies. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 

2001); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see also Hernandez-Ortez v. Holder, 741 F.3d 644, 

647-48 (5th Cir. 2014). For the same reason, we lack jurisdiction to consider

assertions that the immigration judge failed to inform Thiam that she could 

have raised the spousal abuse claim during her removal proceedings. See

§ 1252(d)(1); Kane v. Holder, 581 F.3d 231, 236-38 (5th Cir. 2009).

Next, as to the denial of her motion to reopen, Thiam argues that the 

BIA made conclusory statements in its orders, failed to explain its decision

adequately, failed to explain why she should have raised her abuse claim 

earlier, ignored the fact that she was abused by her former husband and was 

the victim of his bigamy, failed to consider that she was a barely-literate person 

who did not understand and was never advised that the abuse claim could have 

been raised during the removal proceedings, failed to consider all of her 

evidence, and carelessly reviewed the record. Further, she contends that the 

BIA violated her due process rights by carelessly reading the record and 

making conclusory statements without a full discussion of her case.

Because the alleged instances of spousal abuse occurred between 2002 

and 2004, at least six years before the initiation of Thiam’s removal 

proceedings in 2010, the BIA did not act capriciously, irrationally, or 

arbitrarily, or otherwise abuse its discretion, in denying Thiam’s motion. See 

 Case: 16-60014 Document: 00514233950 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/13/2017
No. 16-60014

3

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303-04 (5th Cir. 2005).

The BIA’s reasons, including its citation to the applicable regulation and facts, 

provided an adequate basis for our review. See Hernandez-Cordero v. USINS, 

819 F.2d 558, 563 (5th Cir. 1987) (en banc). There is “little else” that the BIA 

could have said to explain its determination regarding the evidence of Thiam’s 

abuse claim and her failure to make the requisite showing under § 1003.2(c)(1). 

Id. Furthermore, the BIA corrected its initial findings regarding whether 

Thiam had timely moved to reopen and submitted a copy of her cancellation of 

removal application.

Finally, it is unavailing for Thiam to argue that she should be excused 

from failing to present the abuse claim earlier due to her lack of familiarity 

with the law. Even if we were to assume arguendo that such an argument 

could have merit, she was represented by counsel during her immigration 

proceedings. Cf. Saahir v. Collins, 956 F.2d 115, 118-19 (5th Cir. 1992) (pro se 

habeas petitioner denied relief despite claim of lack of legal knowledge); 

Crutcher v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 746 F.2d 1076, 1081-84 (5th Cir. 1984) 

(represented party in civil litigation).

Accordingly, Thiam’s petition for review is DENIED in part and 

DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction.

 Case: 16-60014 Document: 00514233950 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/13/2017