Svetlana Grigoryan v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Svetlana Grigoryan v. Loretta E. Lynch

616 F. App'x 250

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 3, 2015

Docket13-70803

StatusUnpublished

This text of 616 F. App'x 250 (Svetlana Grigoryan v. Loretta E. Lynch) 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

Svetlana Grigoryan v. Loretta E. Lynch, 616 F. App'x 250 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Svetlana Grigoryan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by 'denying Grigoryan’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where she failed to establish plausible grounds for the relief she seeks. See Serrano v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 1317, 1319 (9th Cir.2006) (“To assert a valid due process ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice; namely, he must show that he has ‘plausible grounds for relief.’ ” (citation omitted)). Contrary to Grigoryan’s contention, the BIA did not engage in impermissible fact-finding in its prejudice analysis. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv) (limiting fact-finding in appeals).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen Grigoryan’s removal proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Svetlana Grigoryan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by 'denying Grigoryan’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where she failed to establish plausible grounds for the relief she seeks. See Serrano v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 1317, 1319 (9th Cir.2006) (“To assert a valid due process ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice; namely, he must show that he has ‘plausible grounds for relief.’ ” (citation omitted)). Contrary to Grigoryan’s contention, the BIA did not engage in impermissible fact-finding in its prejudice analysis. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv) (limiting fact-finding in appeals).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen Grigoryan’s removal proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

616 F. App'x 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/svetlana-grigoryan-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack