Enkelejda Poci v. Jefferson Sessions

Ninth Circuit

Enkelejda Poci v. Jefferson Sessions

681 F. App'x 649

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 14, 2017

Docket15-73661

StatusUnpublished

This text of 681 F. App'x 649 (Enkelejda Poci v. Jefferson Sessions) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Enkelejda Poci v. Jefferson Sessions, 681 F. App'x 649 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Enkelejda Poci, a native and citizen of Albania, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s decision to summarily dismiss an appeal. Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Poci’s appeal where she indicated on her notice of appeal that a separate written brief would be filed but failed to file a brief, and her notice of appeal lacked sufficient specificity regarding the grounds for appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A); cf. Garcia-Cortez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 749, 752 (9th Cir. 2004) (the BIA may summarily dismiss an alien’s appeal if an alien submits no separate written brief or statement to the BIA and inadequately informs the BIA of what aspects of the decision were allegedly incorrect and why).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Poci’s contentions regarding the merits of her case, her ex-husband’s testimony, and the alleged ineffective ' assistance of counsel, because she failed to raise these contentions before the BIA and theTeby failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency); Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (new evidence may be added to the record through a motion to reopen with the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Enkelejda Poci, a native and citizen of Albania, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s decision to summarily dismiss an appeal. Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Poci’s appeal where she indicated on her notice of appeal that a separate written brief would be filed but failed to file a brief, and her notice of appeal lacked sufficient specificity regarding the grounds for appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A); cf. Garcia-Cortez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 749, 752 (9th Cir. 2004) (the BIA may summarily dismiss an alien’s appeal if an alien submits no separate written brief or statement to the BIA and inadequately informs the BIA of what aspects of the decision were allegedly incorrect and why).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Poci’s contentions regarding the merits of her case, her ex-husband’s testimony, and the alleged ineffective ' assistance of counsel, because she failed to raise these contentions before the BIA and theTeby failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency); Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (new evidence may be added to the record through a motion to reopen with the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

681 F. App'x 649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enkelejda-poci-v-jefferson-sessions-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack