FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 22 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARIDAS CHAKRABORTY, AKA No. 13-74426
Harry,
Agency No. A200-576-325
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Haridas Chakraborty, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion denials of motions to reopen and reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales,
*
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).
400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chakraborty’s motion to
reopen, based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where Chakraborty has not
established plausible grounds for relief. See Ray v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 582, 587
(9th Cir. 2006) (to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on
failure to file a brief to the BIA, a petitioner must “demonstrate plausible grounds
for relief on his underlying claim” (citation omitted)); 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a)(4)
(aliens arriving in the United States are ineligible for pre-conclusion voluntary
departure); Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 667-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (rejecting
contention that petitioner was not an “arriving alien” where alien had been
paroled).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Chakraborty’s unexhausted contentions that
he is eligible for post-conclusion voluntary departure and that the immigration
judge failed to advise him about voluntary departure. See Tijani v. Holder, 628
F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal
claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 13-74426