Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal on the ground that she failed to meet the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” requirement. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Gutierrez moved the BIA to reopen on the grounds that she suffered a violation of due process as a result of the ineffective assistance of an unaccredited representative, but her new counsel, Ricci and Sprouls, failed to petition this Court for review of the BIA’s denial of this motion. As a result, we do not have jurisdiction to hear the issue. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405-06, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995) (<HOLDING>); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(6) (regarding
holding that if a single primary right should be invaded by two distinct and separate legal wrongs two causes of action would result holding under garrison that officers should have known that building contained two separate apartments because officers prior to search noticed two separate voice boxes by front door and a letter indicating two apartments this information should have prompted further investigation holding that the evidence supported two separate convictions and punishments for two attempted robberies of two different victims who suffered separate and distinct harms holding that under the former rules congress envisioned two separate petitions filed to review two separate final orders holding unanimity requirement not violated when charge stated two separate counts with two separate and distinct offenses in each case