Court Opinion

ID: 9380243
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 18:00:50.435527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:23.696004
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 17 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JIE XU,                                         No.    19-70072

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A096-067-427

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                              Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Jie Xu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an Immigration

Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
motion to 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 agency did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider

because Xu failed to identify any error of fact or law in the IJ’s prior decision

denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention

Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558

(9th Cir. 2004) (motion to reconsider must identify a legal or factual error in the

prior decision); see also Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1229 (9th Cir. 2020) (this

court will reverse only if agency’s decision is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to

law).

        We do not consider the materials Xu references in her opening brief that are

not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th

Cir. 1996) (en banc).

        To the extent Xu challenges the IJ’s 2017 decision denying relief, we lack

jurisdiction to consider her contentions because Xu did not appeal that decision to

the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See Barron v.

Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or

claims in administrative proceedings below).

        PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                           2                                     19-70072