Case Name: Agripina IANCU, aka Iancu Agripina, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-19
Citations: 671 F. App'x 600
Docket Number: No. 15-71058
Parties: Agripina IANCU, aka Iancu Agripina, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 600–601

Head Matter:
Agripina IANCU, aka Iancu Agripina, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-71058
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 14, 2016
Filed December 19, 2016
Colyn B. Desatnik, Colyn B. Desatnik, APLC, Irvine, CA, for Petitioner
Jane Tracey Schaffner, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, 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
Agripina Iancu, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("U") decision denying her motion to reconsider the denial of a motion to reopen her removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We dismiss the petition for review.
Iancu concedes that the motion to reconsider was untimely and failed to point out any errors of law or fact in the IJ's denial of her motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(l)-(2), but contends the IJ erred and abused her discretion in not construing her motion to reconsider as a request for sua sponte reopening, and that the motion to reopen was based on exceptional circumstances rather than on lack of notice. We lack jurisdiction to review these unexhausted contentions. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th cir. 2010) (court lacks jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented to the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.