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

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

e sponde nt . No. 11-72482 Age n c y No. A075-731-618 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 August 9, 2013 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TALLM AN, C LIFTON, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r Dhire ndra

Nath Sukul pe titions for re v ie w of the de c ision of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s re

je c ting his a

pplic ations for va

rious form s of re l ie f from re m ova l. Sukul c onte n d s tha t his he aring c o unse l wa s so ine ffe c tive that he



# FIL ED AUG 13 2013 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). 1wa s una

ble to re a sona

bly p re se nt his c a se , de priving him of his dueproc e ss right to a fa i r he a ring. Spe c ific a lly , he c la im s tha t c ounse l fa ile d to pre pa

re him to te stify a bout a n a lle ge d inc ide nt whe re Sukul wa s kidna ppe d by Fijia n a uthoritie s , fully re vie w the re c ord, c onsult with him and his wife , file c e rta i n doc um e nts, a sk

“ prope r que stions,”and “ e nsure a de quate tra nsla t ion of thehe a

rings.” W e have jurisdic tion pursua

nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a

nd we de ny

the pe tition. 1 In orde r to suc c e e d on a

n ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c la im , a

n a lie n m ust c om ply with thefollowing proc e dura l re quire m e nts: (1) provide an a ffidav it de ta iling thea gre e m e nt with c ounse l; (2) notify c ounse l of the a l le gations so tha t c ounse l ha s a

n opportunity

to re spond; a

n d (3) disc lose whe the r the a lie n ha s file d a

c om pla int with the

disc iplina

ry a uthoritie s . C

orre a-Riv e ra v . Holde r , 706 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th C ir. 2013) (c i ting Matte r of Lozada , 19 I. & N. De c . 637 (B IA 1988)). Furthe rm ore , the a lie n m ust de m onstra

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

t c ounse l’ s fa ilure wa s pre judic ia l. C hue n Piu K

w ong v . Holde r , 671 F.3d 872, 880 (9th C ir. 2011), c e rt. de nie d , __ S. C t. __, No. 12-150, 2013 W L 3213548 (June

27, 2013).

1 As the pa

rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s of the c a se , we re pe at only those fa c t s ne c e ssa

ry to e xp la in our de c ision. 2He re , Sukul fa ile d to c om ply with m ost (if not all) of the proc e dura l re quire m e nts. Although we do not de m and stric t c om plia n c e whe re the purpose s of the re quire m e nts a

re “ fully se rve d by

othe r m e ans” or c o unse l’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e is “ obvious a

nd undispute d on the fa c e of the re c ord,” Re y e s v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 592, 597 (9th C ir. 2004), this is not suc h a c a se . On its fa c e , the re c ord shows tha t the re we re se ve ra l ina c c ura c ie s in thea p p lic ation in whic h Sukul de sc ribe d the kidna

pping inc ide nt a

nd tha t Sukul did not pre

pa re it him se lf, sta

ting that he ha d “ no ide a ” what

wa s in thea

p plic at ion. B e c a

use Sukul fa ile d to provide c ounse l with a

n opportunity

to re spond to his c la i m s of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e , we c annot de te rm i ne whe the r c ounse l ha d va lid re a sons for de c lining to e lic it te stim ony a bout thea l le ge d inc ide nt. C onse que ntly , it is “ i m possibleto de te rm ine whe the r [Sukul’ s] ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im

ha s m e rit.” Tamang v . Holde r , 598 F.3d 1083, 1090 (9th C ir. 2010). Sukul’ s fa ilure to c o m

ply with theproc e dura l re quire m e nts simila rly pre c lude s us from

a sse ssing his othe

r c la im s of ine ffe c tive a s sista nc e . In a ny e ve nt, Sukul ha s not e xpla ine d how the outc om e of the proc e e dings might ha ve be e n a ffe c te d ha d c ounse l pe rform e d a s he c onte nds she should ha ve , an d c onse q ue ntly , Sukul ha s not de m onstra te d pre judic e . PE T IT IO N DE NIE D . 3