UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT SUHUA QIU,

Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. Nos. 13-74294 14-71932 Age n c y No. A077-668-221
ORDER

B e fore : WALLAC E , M c KEOW N, a nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s. The pe tition for pa

n e l re he aring is GR

A NTED in pa

rt. W e W ITHDR

AW our pre v ious m e m o ra

ndum disposition (Dkt. 47 in No. 13-74294, 40 in No. 14-71932)
and re pla c e it with the one file d c onc urre ntly with this order. The pe tition for
re he aring is DENIED in a ll othe r re spe c ts. IT IS SO O RDE RE D. 

# F IL ED JUL 14 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALSN O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT SUHUA QIU,

Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 13-74294 Age n c y No. A077-668-221
M EM O R ANDUM *

SUHUA QIU,

Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-71932 Age n c y No. A077-668-221

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls 

# F IL ED JUL 14 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Subm itte d M arc h 14, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E, M c KEOW N, a nd B Y B EE, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r Suhua

Qiu pe titions for re vie w of two orde rs of the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s (B oa

rd). The first orde r dism isse d his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (IJ) orde r holding his a s y lum a p plic ation to befrivolous, a nd the s e c ond de nie d his m otion to re ope n proc e e dings. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C
. § 1252, a

n d we gran t the pe tition for re vie w only with re spe c t to the B oa rd’ s de nia l of the m otion to re ope n. W e “ re vie w the de nia l of a m otion to re ope n for a

buse of disc re tion.” Me

z aValle jos v . Holde r , 669 F.3d 920, 923 (9th C ir. 2012). TheB oa rd “ a buse s its disc re tion whe n

its de c ision is ‘ arbitra

ry , irrat iona l, or c ontra

ry to la w.’ ” Id. , quoting Ontiv

e ros-Lope z v . IN S, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th C ir. 2000). The B oa rd de nie d Qiu’ s m otion to re ope n, whic h wa s ba se d on his
attorne y s’ a lle ge d ly

ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e , be c a use Qiu ha d not submi tte d a ny
e vide nc e “ be y ond wha

t wa s pre viously

be fore e i the r the Im

m i gration Judgeor the B oa rd tha t would re fle c t tha

t form e r c o unse ls’ pe rform anc e wa s de fic ie nt.” In

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s the se c a se s are suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

2e sse nc e , the B o a rd c onc lude d tha

t Qiu should ha

ve ra ise d his ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e
argum e nt during his a

ppe a l. This c o nc lusion suffe rs from two de fe c ts. First, it fails to distinguish be

t we e n the a lle ge dly

ine ffe c tive pe rform anc e s of Qiu’ s two la wy e rs. Although Qiu c onc e iva bly c ould ha v e c ha lle n ge d the first la

wy e r’ s pe rform a nc e on a p pe a l , he ne c e ssa

rily c ould not ha

v e c ha lle n ge d the se c ond la wy e r’ s pe rform anc e d

uring the appe al until the a ppe a l c onc lude d. It wa s a n
a buse o f disc re tion to hold othe rwise
. Se c ond, Qiu a sse rte d in his motion tha t his se c ond la

wy e r’ s fa ilure to a

rgue that his first la

wy e r pe rform e d ine ffe c tive ly wa s ine ffe c tive a ssista

n c e in its own right. The B oa

rd’ s c onc lusion tha

t Qiu should ha

ve m a de the argum e nt e arlie r the re fore “ short-c i rc uits the c e n tra l que stions: whe t he r [Qiu’ s] c o unse l wa s
unc onstitutiona

lly ine ffe c t ive in fa iling to pre se nt the [argum e nt] an d, if so, whe the r [Qiu] w[a s] pre

judic e d by

[his] c ounse l ’ s pe rform anc e .” Marav illa Marav illa v . Ashc roft , 381 F.3d 855, 858 (9th C ir. 2004). If a llowe d to sta n d, the B oa rd’ s de c ision would pe

rm i t the la

wy e r’ s a l le ge dly

ine ffe c tive pe rform an c e to ba r a c ha lle nge to tha

t ve ry pe rform anc e . Inste a d, the B oa rd should ha

ve de te rm i ne d whe the r Qiu ha d shown tha t (1) his “ c o unse l [fa ile d to] pe rform with suffic i e nt c om

p e te nc e ,” and (2) he wa s pre judic e d by

tha t pe rform anc e . Id. , quoting Lin v. Ashc roft , 377 F.3d 1014, 1027 (9th C ir. 2004).
3On re m and, the B oa rd should c onduc t the ana ly sis de sc ribe d in Marav illa Marav illa , whic h

Qiu did not c a ll to our a

tte n tion until his pe

tition for re h e aring. W e e m pha s iz e tha

t the B oa rd a buse d its disc re tion only by fa iling to follow this
ana ly sis; we e xpre ss no vie w a s to the m e rits of Qiu’ s m o tion to re ope n. In light of our holding tha

t the B oa rd m ust re a sse ss Qiu’ s m o tion to re ope n his a dm inistra tive proc e e dings, wedo not re a c h the m e rits of theB o ard’ s othe r orde r. PE T IT IO N G RANT E D.

4