
    BO WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-74126.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed June 21, 2011.
    Melanie Meie Yang, Esquire, Law Offices of Melanie M. Yang, San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner.
    Anna Nelson, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bo Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Sembir ing v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 985 (9th Cir.2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Wang’s motion to reopen where she failed to overcome the presumption of effective delivery of her notice of hearing, see id. at 986-88, and failed to establish that the alleged ineffective assistance of an immigration consultant constituted an exceptional circumstance warranting rescission of her in absentia removal order, see Monjaraz-Munoz v. INS, 327 F.3d 892, 896 (9th Cir.2003) (petitioner must show the alleged ineffective assistance was the cause of her failure to appear for her hearing).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Wang’s contention that she received ineffective assistance of counsel from the attorney who prepared her motion to reopen and her BIA appeal because she failed to exhaust this contention before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

Wang’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     