Viphakone

MEMORANDUM **

Viengvilay Viphakone petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. As the parties are familiar with the facts, procedural history, and arguments, we will not recount them here.

This court previously dismissed a separate petition by Viphakone (No. 03-70717) which sought review of the denial of his applications for asylum and for withholding of removal. We will not consider here issues pertaining to that denial, including the adverse credibility determination.

This court reviews the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 , 112 S.Ct. 719 , 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992). We deny the petition.

The motion presented to the BIA was not accompanied by appropriate evidence substantiating the purported marriage, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 3.2 (c)(1). The BIA’s denial of the motion was thus not an abuse of discretion.

The claim that Viphakone suffered from ineffective counsel is one properly dealt with by way of a motion to reopen presented to the BIA. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 896-97 (9th Cir.2003). Any such motion should include the evidence necessary to support it. The claim as made to us was…