N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
HAC I KUR T, Pe titione r,
v. JEFFREY B . SESSIONS, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt
. No. 10-71558 Age n c y No. A072-117-555
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm ission De fe rre d De c e m be r 11, 2014; Subm itte d M arc h 6, 2017 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GILM AN, *** GR

AB ER , a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s . 

# FIL ED
MAR 06 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble R ona ld Le e Gilm a

n , Se nior C i rc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.Ha c i Kurt pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) de nia l of his motion to re ope n ba se d on ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c o unse l. The B IA he ld tha

t (1) Kurt suffe re d no pre

judic e from

his a ttorne y ’ s a lle ge d ine ffe c tive ne s s, a

n d (2) Kurt wa s not e ntitle d to e quita ble tolling. W e have jurisdic tion under 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we de ny

the pe tition. 1. W e re vie w que stions of la w, inc luding c l a im s of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l, de novo. Mohamme d v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 791–92 (9th C ir. 2005). To e sta

blish ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c o unse l, a

pe t itione r m

ust provetha

t (1) his a ttorne y a c te d inc om

pe te ntly and (2) the e rror wa s pre judic ia l to the pe titione r’ s c a s e . Id. at

793. “ [P] re

j udic e re sults when

the pe rform anc e of c ounse l
wa s so ina de quat e tha

t it m ay have a ffe c te d the outc om e of the proc e e dings.” Id. at 793–94 (interna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). Kurt a lle ge s tha t he wa s pre

judic e d by his prior a

ttorne y ’ s fa ilure to a

rgue , de spite the im

m igration judge ’ s finding tha t Kurt la c ke d c re dibility , tha t Kurt ha d shown a

ge nuine fe a

r of future pe rse c ution ba se d sole ly

on doc um e nta

ry e vide nc e . Se eAl-Harbi v . IN S , 242 F.3d 882, 894 (9th C ir. 2001). Suc h a

n a rgum e nt would not ha

ve a ffe c te d the outc om e of the se

B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c ts a

nd proc e dura l history , we do not re sta

te the m he re e xc e pt a s ne c e s sa ry to e xpla in our de c i sion. The Ninth C irc uit dismisse d Kurt’ s prior pe t ition a n d he ld tha

t the a ge nc y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation re ste d on substa ntia l e vide nc e . K

urt v
. Holde r , 324 F. App’ x 650, 651 (9th C ir. 2009) (unpublishe d). 2proc e e dings. The doc um e nta ry e vide nc e pre se nte d in Al-Harbi showe d c onc re te thre ats spe c ific to a

sm a l l group of e v a c u e e s, inc luding thepe titione r. Id. at 887. B y c ontra st, Kurt’ s doc um e nta ry e vide n c e re late s to Kurds ge ne ra lly and m ost of it is a t le a st fifte e n y e ars old. Unlike the pe titione r in Al-Harbi , Kurt did not pre se nt the t y pe of foc u se d doc um e ntation tha t would c om

pe l a finding of future pe rse c ution. 2. W e re vie w for a

buse of disc re tion theB IA’ s de nia l of e quita ble tolling. Se eJ

one s v . Blanas , 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th C ir. 2004). B e c a use Kurt ha s not shown tha

t ra ising a n Al-Harbi

argum e nt would ha

ve m a de any

diffe re nc e in the o utc om e of his c a se , the B IA did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing e q uita ble tolling. Singh v . Holde r , 658 F.3d 879, 887–88 (9th C ir. 2011). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

3