Case Name: LIANG WEN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-01
Citations: 223 F. App'x 674
Docket Number: No. 06-70261
Parties: LIANG WEN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 674–674

Head Matter:
LIANG WEN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70261.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2007 .
Filed March 1, 2007.
Jeremiah Johnson, Esq., Reeves & Associates, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Andrew C. MacLachlan, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Liang Wen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S.. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Wen moved to reopen so that he could apply for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture on the basis of his having joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in 2002. Contrary to Wen's contentions, the BIA acted within its discretion when it denied his motion for failing to present new evidence and for failing to reasonably explain why Wen did not pursue these claims during his previous hearing in 2004. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c); Doherty, 502 U.S. at 325-328, 112 S.Ct. 719.
We lack jurisdiction to review Wen's contention that his former counsel inadequately pursued his asylum claim because Wen failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).
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.