HARIDAS CHAKRABORTY V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-74426 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 22 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HARIDAS CHAKRABORTY, AKA Harry, No. 13-74426 Agency No. A200-576-325 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
