Case Name: ENJI LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-20
Citations: 444 F. App'x 181
Docket Number: No. 09-71954
Parties: ENJI LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 444
Pages: 181–182

Head Matter:
ENJI LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71954.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 20, 2011.
Maria Christina Flores, Law Office of Maria Flores, San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner.
Gregory Darrell Mack, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Enji Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 985 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency was within its discretion in denying Li's motion to reopen on the ground that she failed to rebut the presumption of effective service by regular mail. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii); cf. Sembiring, 499 F.3d at 988-89 (describing evidence sufficient to overcome presumption of effective service). In evaluating this petition for review, we do not consider facts asserted for the first time in Li's opening brief. See Sembiring, 499 F.3d at 988.
Li failed to exhaust her contention concerning service of retained counsel. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).
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.