N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT VOLODYM YR

KUZM ENKO, Pe titioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 10-73154 Age n c y No. A098-157-041 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 22, 2015 ** B e fore : HAW K INS, GR AB ER , a nd W . FLETC H ER , C irc uit Judge s . Volody m yr Kuz m e nk o, a

native of the form e r Sovie t Union a n d a c i tiz e n of Ukra ine , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r 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 30 2015 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).re ope n , re vie w for substa ntia l e vide n c e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c t ua l de te rm inations, a

nd re vie w de novo c onstitutiona l c la im s. Mohamme d v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 791- 92 (9th C ir. 2005). 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 in deny ing Kuzm e nko’ s m otion to re ope n ba se d on ine ffe c t ive a ssista nc e of c ounse l, whe re Kuz m e nko fa ile d to e sta blish pre judic e re sulting from

his form e r attorne y ’ s a lle ge d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e . Se eid. at 793 (to pre va il on a n ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c la im , a pe t itione r m

ust de m onstra

te tha t c ounse l fa ile d to pe rform with suffic ie nt c om pe te nc e and tha

t he wa s pre

judic e d by c ounse l’ s pe rform anc e ). The re c ord doe s not support Kuz

m e nko’ s c onte ntion tha

t his a ttorne y fa ile d to unde rsta

nd tha t his c la i m wa s for a n im pute d politic a l opinion, a

nd be c a u se substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the

IJ’ s de te rm ination tha

t, e ve n if Kuzm e nko ha d be e n de e m e d c re dible , his c la i m for a s y lum

and re late d

re lie f fa ils on them e rits, Kuzm e nko c annot e sta blish pre judic e re sulting from

any a lle ge d attorne y

e rrors re late d to theIJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ion. W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r Kuz m e nko’ s une xha uste d c onte ntion tha

t his a ttorne y e rre d in e arlie r filing a

m o tion to re ope n to a

p p ly for a d j ustm e nt of sta tus. Se eTijani v . Holde r , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th C ir. 2010) (thec ourt la c ks

1 0 - 7 3 1 5 4 2jurisdic tion to c onside r le ga l c la im s not pre s e nte d in a n a lie n’ s a dm i nistra

tive proc e e dings be fore the a ge nc y ). Furthe r, we de ny

Kuz m e nko’ s re que s t for judic ia l notic e of non-re le va nt, e xtra -re c ord inform ation discusse d in his open ing brie f. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(4)(A) (“ the c ourt of a ppe a ls sha ll de c ide the pe tition only on the a dm inistra

tive re c ord on whic h the orde r of re m ova l is ba se d” ); Ruiz v . C ity of Santa Maria , 160 F.3d 543, 548 n.13 (9th C ir. 1998) (judic ia l notic e is ina p propria te whe re the fa c t s to benotic e d are not re le va

nt to thedisposition of the issue s be fore the c ourt). In light of this disposition, we do not re a c h Kuz m e nko’ s re m a ining c onte ntions. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 0 - 7 3 1 5 4 3