Case Name: LI WANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-27
Citations: 631 F. App'x 481
Docket Number: No. 14-71163
Parties: LI WANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges,
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 631
Pages: 481–482

Head Matter:
LI WANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-71163.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 20, 2016,
Filed Jan. 27, 2016.
Thomas Ogden, Counsel, Law Offices of Thomas Ogden, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
Sharon Michele Clay, Esquire, Trial, Brooke Maurer, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, OIL, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, 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
Li Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying her motion to reconsider the denial of her second motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Wang's unexhausted contentions regarding address discrepancies between the address she claims she gave to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the address to which the immigration court mailed correspondence regarding her case. See Tija-ni 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."). To the extent Wang contends the IJ was biased, we likewise lack jurisdiction to consider that unexhausted contention. See id.
We deny Wang's motion to take judicial notice of documents outside the adminis trative record. See Lising v. INS, 124 F.3d 996, 998 (9th Cir.1997) (explaining standard for review of out-of-record evidence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.