Sandhu v. Gonzales
This text of 139 F. App'x 867 (Sandhu v. Gonzales) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Jasmail Singh Sandhu, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying as untimely his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.
[868]*868We previously denied Sandhu’s petition for review of the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. See Sandhu v. Ashcroft, No. 02-74318, 2003 WL 22682598 (9th Cir. Nov. 13, 2003). Sandhu’s sole contention on this petition for review is that his motion to reopen was filed approximately one year late because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We lack jurisdiction to consider Sandhu’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies by first raising it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that exhaustion is jurisdictional); Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that a petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies by first presenting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
139 F. App'x 867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sandhu-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.