T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T FR AN CI SC O N UN EZ - ALVA RE Z, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 73396 A ge nc yN o. A 074- 787- 557 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ay25, 2010 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T H O M A S , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F r a nc i s c o N une z - A l var e z , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

or r e v ie w o f

th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h is m o tio n to re op en base d o n i neff

ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1252 . See Ferna ndezv. G on zales , 439 F . 3d 592, 602 ( 9th C i r . 2006) 

# FI LED JU N 02 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 73396 2 ( c ourtha s j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rha r ds hi p e va l ua t i ons i n the c ont e xtof the agency ’ s pre

j ud i ce det erm i nat i on s) . W e r evi ew for abu se of di sc re t i on the deni al o f am o tio n to r e o p e n , an dr e v ie w d e n o v o c la im s o f du e p r o c e s s v io la tio n s du e to in e f f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e o f

c o u n s e l. Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 400 F . 3d 785, 791- 92 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e g r an t th e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . T he B IA concl ud ed thatN un ez -A l vare z f ai l ed t o d em on strat e thathi s f orm er coun se l ’ s w i thd raw alof hi s app l i cat i on for s peci alrul e c ance l l at i on of re m ov al pu rs uantt o 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 9b (b)( 2) prej ud i ce d N un ez -A l vare z’ s c l ai m for thi s f orm o f r e lie f , b e c au s e N u n e z - A lv ar e z d idn o t d e m o n s tr a te th a t h is r e m o v a l w o u ldr e s u lt i n extre m e har dshi p t o h i m se l f or hi s qual i fy i ng re l at i ves. H ow ever , the B IA a d d r e s s e do n lyth e e v id e n c e in c lu d e dw ith th e m o tio n , an dit d idn o t c o n s id e rth is e v id e n c e in a g g r e g a te w ith th e e v id e n c e o f h ar d s h ip p r e s e n te db e f o r e th e I J . See Franco-R osendo v. G on zales , 45 4 F . 3d 96 5, 96 6 (9th C i r. 20 06 ) ( the B IA abuses i t s di sc re t i on w hen i tfa i l s t o “ consi der and addres s i n i t s e nt i re ty the evi dence s ub m itte db yap e titio n e r ” ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m ark s a n dc ita tio n o m itte d ) ; M at ter of I ge , 20 I . & N . D e c . 880, 882 ( B I A 1994) ( r e l e vantha r ds hi p f a c t or s “ m us tbe c ons i de r e d i n the a ggr e ga t e i n de t e rm i ni ng w he the re xtr e m e ha r ds hi p e xi s t s ” ) . T he B I A th e r e f

o r e ab u s e dits d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g N u n e z - A lv ar e z ’s m o tio n to r e o p e n .08- 73396 3 Se e S i n gh v . I

NS , 213 F . 3d 1050, 1052 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( a ge nc yabus e s i t s di s c r e t i on w h e n it a c ts “a rb itr ar ily , irr a tio n a lly , o rc o n tr aryto law ” ) . W e r em and for the B IA t o d et erm i ne, i n l i gh tof the ent i re re cord, w hether N une z - A l var e z ’ s f

orm e rc ouns e l ’ s a c t i ons “ m ayha ve a f f e c t e d the out c om e of

the proceedi ng . ” M

oh am m ed , 40 0 F . 3d at79 4 (i nt ernal qu ot at i on om i tt ed). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W GR AN T E D; RE MAND E D.