FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 15 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PARAMJIT KAUR, No. 11-71130
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-691-037
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 13, 2014**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Paramjit Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a Board
of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations,
*
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).
including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d
889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review. We review for
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kaur’s motion to reopen
based on ineffective assistance where Kaur failed to establish prejudice arising
from any alleged ineffective assistance from her three former attorneys. See
Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897-903; Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 973-976
(9th Cir. 2004) (amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2005)) (to prevail on an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim, petitioner must demonstrate prejudice
resulting from the ineffective assistance).
Kaur failed to exhaust her contention regarding waiver of the right to
counsel. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Kaur’s remaining contentions.
See Mendez-Alcaraz v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 842, 844 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 11-71130