Case Name: Haridas CHAKRABORTY, aka Harry, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-22
Citations: 621 F. App'x 382
Docket Number: No. 13-74426
Parties: Haridas CHAKRABORTY, aka Harry, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 621
Pages: 382–383

Head Matter:
Haridas CHAKRABORTY, aka Harry, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-74426.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
Filed Oct. 22, 2015.
Mun Su Park, Ph.D., Law Offices of Park & Associates, Tamuning, GU, for Petitioner.
Victor Matthew Lawrence, I, Esquire, Assistant Director, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE and WATFORD, 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
Haridas Chakraborty, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion denials of motions to reopen and reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chakraborty's motion to reopen, based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where Chakraborty has not established plausible grounds for relief. See Ray v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 582, 587 (9th Cir.2006) (to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on failure to file a brief to the BIA, a petitioner must "demonstrate plausible grounds for relief on his underlying claim" (citation omitted)); 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a)(4) (aliens arriving in the United States are ineligible for pre-conclusion voluntary departure); Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 667-68 (9th Cir.2005) (rejecting contention that petitioner was not an "arriving alien" where alien had been paroled).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Chakra-borty's unexhausted contentions that he is eligible for post-conclusion voluntary departure and that the immigration judge failed to advise him about voluntary departure. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien's administrative proceedings 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.