FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 18 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EUGENIO CONTRERAS-PELAYO, No. 08-73100
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-349-901
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011 **
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Eugenio Contreras-Pelayo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. See Cano-Merida v. INS,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Contreras-Pelayo’s motion
to reopen because he failed to demonstrate the evidence he submitted was
previously unavailable. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c); Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423
F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir. 2005).
The court lacks jurisdiction to review Contreras-Pelayo’s ineffective
assistance of counsel contention because he did not exhaust that claim before the
BIA. See Puga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812, 815-16 (9th Cir. 2007).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s underlying April 15, 2008, order
dismissing Contreras-Pelayo’s direct appeal because this petition for review is not
timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 08-73100