
    Svetlana GRIGORYAN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70803.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 3, 2015.
    Artem M. Sarian, Esquire, Sarian Law Group, APLC, Glendale, CA, for petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Kathryn Deangelis, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   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.
     