FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 22 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EUN YOUNG KIM, No. 15-72118
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-245-729
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Eun Young Kim, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of removal. Our
*
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).
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law
and constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
To the extent Kim challenges the BIA’s denial of her ineffective assistance
of counsel claim against the attorney who entered her pleadings, the BIA did not
err in concluding that she failed to show eligibility for adjustment of status. See id.
at 793-94 (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner
must demonstrate prejudice); 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2) (listing eligibility
requirements for adjustment of status).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Kim’s unexhausted contentions that she was
eligible for cancellation of removal, that the IJ violated due process by allegedly
failing to inform her regarding eligibility for adjustment of status and exhibiting
bias towards her, and that translation problems led to a due process violation. 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 BIA). To the extent Kim contends attorneys Takeno and Egan provided
ineffective assistance of counsel, we also lack jurisdiction to review that
unexhausted contention. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 15-72118