FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 26 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SEGUNDO MARCELO ANGAMARCA No. 13-71820
LLIVICURA,
Agency No. A097-526-092
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Segundo Marcelo Angamarca Llivicura, a native and citizen of Ecuador,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
*
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).
reopen. Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying for lack of prejudice
Angamarca Llivicura’s motion to reopen based on a claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel. See Montes-Lopez v. Holder, 694 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2012)
(“[A] petitioner must show prejudice to prevail on a claim [of] ineffective
assistance of counsel . . . .”). As to Angamarca Llivicura’s first prior attorney, the
BIA’s previous decision reopening removal proceedings based on Angamarca
Llivicura’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cured any prejudice arising
from that attorney’s errors. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 748 (9th Cir.
2004) (observing that reopening can “cure” previous defective representation). As
to his second prior attorney, Angamarca Llivicura did not explain how any
testimony that his siblings were unable to present due to that attorney’s alleged
errors might have altered the agency’s determination that he had failed to
demonstrate sufficient hardship to qualify for cancellation of removal. See
Mohsseni Behbahani v. INS, 796 F.2d 249, 251 (9th Cir. 1986) (concluding that the
petitioner’s failure to “describe the evidence that [his counsel] incompetently failed
to introduce” prevented the court from finding prejudice).
2 13-71820
In light of this disposition, we need not evaluate Angamarca Llivicura’s
compliance with the procedural requirements for filing an ineffective-assistance
claim. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).
Angamarca Llivicura’s assertions regarding hardship lie beyond the scope of
our review. See Andia, 359 F.3d at 1184 (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA,
we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-71820