Case Name: Ofelia Elizabeth ALVARADO-MELENDEZ and Genesis Elizabeth Lopez-Alvarado, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-23
Citations: 678 F. App'x 551
Docket Number: No. 15-73035
Parties: Ofelia Elizabeth ALVARADO-MELENDEZ and Genesis Elizabeth Lopez-Alvarado, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 678
Pages: 551–552

Head Matter:
Ofelia Elizabeth ALVARADO-MELENDEZ and Genesis Elizabeth Lopez-Alvarado, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-73035
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 14, 2017
Filed February 23, 2017
Jeffrey O’Brien, Esquire, Attorney, The Law Office of Jeffrey O’Brien, Berkeley, CA, for Petitioner
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Claire Workman, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS and FERNANDEZ, 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
Ofelia Elizabeth Alvarado-Melendez and Genesis Elizabeth Lopez-Alvarado, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's order denying their 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. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reopen for failure to establish exceptional circumstances, where they failed to attend their hearing because of a misunderstanding with their attorney. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1); Valencia-Fragoso v. INS, 321 F.3d 1204, 1205-06 (9th Cir. 2003) (no exceptional circumstances where petitioner was late to her hearing due to confusion about the time).
To the extent petitioners contend that their former counsel was ineffective, we lack jurisdiction to review this unexhaust-ed claim. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) ('We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien's administrative proceedings before the BIA.").
We also lack jurisdiction to review the agency's determination not to reopen sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 824-825 (9th Cir. 2011); cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.