Case Name: LIJUAN ZHU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-22
Citations: 515 F. App'x 704
Docket Number: No. 09-70639
Parties: LIJUAN ZHU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 515
Pages: 705–705

Head Matter:
LIJUAN ZHU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-70639.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2013.
Filed April 22, 2013.
Lijuan Zhu, Upland, CA, pro se.
Melanie Meie Yang, Esquire, Law Offices of Melanie M. Yang, San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner.
Janette L. Allen, Esquire, Trial, Oil, Im-ran Raza Zaidi, Trial, 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: CANBY, IKUTA, 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
Lijuan Zhu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider Zhu's contentions regarding the hardship her removal will cause her U.S. citizen husband and her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel where she did not raise these contentions before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction over contentions not raised before the BIA); see also Puga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812, 815-816 (9th Cir.2007) (indicating that ineffective assistance of counsel claims must be raised in a motion to reopen before the BIA).
Zhu's remaining contentions are without merit.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.