N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SEGUNDO M AR C ELO ANGAM AR C A LLIVIC UR

A , Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-71820 Age n c y No. A097-526-092 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 itte d

June 25, 2014 ** B e fore : HAW K INS, TALLM AN, a nd NGUYEN, C i rc u it Judge s. Se gundo M arc e lo Anga

m arc a Llivic ura , a

native and c itiz e n of Ec u a dor, pe titions for re vie w of a

n orde r of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) de ny ing his motion to re ope n re m ova l proc e e dings. Our jurisdiction is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for a buse of disc re tion thede nia l of a m otion to 

# FIL ED JUN 26 2014 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).re ope n . Andia v . Ashc roft , 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th C ir. 2004) (pe r c uriam ). W e

de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion by

de ny ing for la c k of pre

judic e Anga m arc a Llivic ura ’ s m otion to re ope n ba se d on a

c la im of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l. Se e Monte

s -Lope z v . Holde r , 694 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th C ir. 2012) (“ [A] pe titione r m

u st show pre

j udic e to pre va il on a c la im [of] ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l . . . .” ). As to Anga m arc a Llivic ura ’ s first prior a

ttorne y , the B IA’ s pre vious de c ision re ope ning re m ova l proc e e dings ba se d on Anga m a rc a Llivic ura ’ s c la im

of ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c ure d a

ny pre judic e arising from tha t attorne y ’ s e rrors. Se e De sta v . Ashc roft , 365 F.3d 741, 748 (9th C ir. 2004) (obse rving tha

t re ope ning c an “ c ure ” pre vious de fe c tive re pre s e ntation). As to his se c ond prior a

ttorne y , Anga

m arc a Llivic ura did not e xpla in how a

ny te stim ony tha t his siblings we

re una ble to pre se nt due to tha

t attorne y ’ s a lle ge d e rrors m ight ha

ve a l te re d the a g e nc y ’ s de t e rm i nation tha t he ha d fa ile d to de m onstra

te suffic ie nt ha

rdship to qualify

for c anc e lla

t ion of re m ova l. Se e Mohsse ni Be hbahani v . IN S , 796 F.2d 249, 251 (9th C ir. 1986) (c onc luding tha t the pe titione r’ s fa ilure to “ de sc ribe the e vide nc e tha t [his c ounse l ] inc om

pe te ntly fa ile d to introduc e ” pre ve nte d

the c ourt from

finding pre

judic e ).

1 3 - 7 1 8 2 0 2In light of this disposition, we ne e d not e va l uate Anga

m arc a Llivic ura ’ s c om plia nc e with theproc e dura l re quire m e nts for filing a n ine ffe c tive -a s sista

nc e c la im . Se e Sime onov

v . Ashc roft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th C i r. 2004). Anga m a rc a Llivic ura ’ s a sse rtions re ga rding ha rdship liebe y ond the sc ope of our re vie w. Se e Andia , 359 F.3d a t 1184 (“ In re vie wing thede c ision of theB IA, we c onside r only t

he grounds re lie d upon by tha t a ge nc y . ” ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 3 - 7 1 8 2 0 3