N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT VINH TAN NGUYEN, AKA Armando Gile Luat, AKA Va

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

e sponde nt . No. 10-71050 Age n c y No. A027-359-701 M EM O R ANDUM *

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

e sponde nt . No. 10-72974 Age n c y No. A027-359-701

VINH TAN NGUYEN, AKA Va n Duc B o, AKA Arm ando GileLuat , Pe titione r, No. 10-73904 Age n c y No. A027-359-701 

# FIL ED AUG 14 2014 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.v.

ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 8, 2013 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, WARDLAW , a nd TALLM AN, C i rc u it Judge s. Vinh Ta n Nguy e n (“

Nguy e n” ) pe titions for re vie w of a B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) de c ision dism issing his a

ppe a l from

an Im m igration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) orde r of re m ova l. Nguy e n a lso pe titions for re vie w of a B IA de c ision de ny ing his motion to re ope n, a s we ll a s a subse que nt B IA de c ision de ny ing Nguy e n’ s m otion for re c onside ration of tha t de n ia l. In this M e m o randum disposition, we a ddre ss Nguy e n’ s c la im s tha t: 1. He wa s de nie d due proc e ss whe n the Notic e to Appe a r fa ile d to a lle ge that he wa s a

la wful pe rm ane nt re side nt; 2. The IJ fa ile d to inform him of va rious form s of im

m i gration re lie f for whic h he wa s a ppa re ntly e ligible ; a

nd,

-2-3. The B IA a buse d its disc re t ion in de ny i ng Nguy e n’ s m otions to re ope n and re c onside r, whic h we re ba se d on a n ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c la im . W e de ny the pe titions with re spe c t to the se c la im s. W e a ddre ss Nguy e n’ s othe r c la i m s in a

publishe d Opinion file d c onc urre ntly with this M e m orandum disposition. 1. Nguy e n

wa s not de nie d due proc e ss whe n the Notic e to Appe a r tre ate d him a s a n a lie n se e king a dm ission to the Unite d State s , rathe r tha n a re turning la wful pe rm ane nt re side nt. An a lie n who ha s be e n pre viously grante d la

w ful pe rm ane nt re side nt sta

t us is prope rly

re ga rde d a s a n a lie n se e king a dm ission if he

“ ha s e nga ge d in ille ga l a c tivity a fte r having depa rte d the Unite d State s.” 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(13)(C )(iii). Thegove rnm e nt ha d am ple e v i de nc e tha

t Nguy e n e nga ge d in ille ga l a c tivity

a fte r de pa

rting theUnite d State s — inde e d, Nguy e n ’ s own guilty ple a c onfirm e d a s m

uc h. In light of this e

vide nc e , Nguy e n wa s prope rly tre ate d a s an a l ie n se e king a dm i ssion to the Unite d State s; the gove rnm e nt wa s unde r no

-3-obliga

tion to tre at

Nguy e n a s a

re turning la

wful pe rm a

n e nt re side nt. Se e GonzagaOrte ga v . Holde r , 736 F.3d 795, 801-04 (9th C i r. 2013). 1 2. The IJ did not fail to inform Nguy e n of a

ny re lie f for whic h Nguy e n wa s a ppa re ntly e ligible . Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1240.11(a)(2). Eve n if the IJ ha d fa ile d to inform Nguy e n of a ny re lie f for whic h Nguy e n wa s a ppa re ntly e ligible , Nguy e n would still be

re quire d to show tha

t he wa s pre

judic e d by

this fa ilure . Se e Unite d State s v . Rojas-Pe droza , 716 F.3d 1253, 1263 (9th C ir. 2013). Nguy e n ha s m a de no suc h showing. On the c ontra ry , the re c ord shows tha

t Nguy e n wa s a

ware of a ll re le va nt form s of im

m igration re lie f, and tha

t he de libe rate ly

c hose not to pursue form s of re lie f that he c ould not re a sona bly hope to obta in. 3. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing Nguy e n’ s m otions to re ope n an d re c onside r, whic h we re ba se d on a n ine ffe c t ive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c la im . Nguy e n’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c l a im

wa s proc e d

ura lly ba rre d . Se e Azanor v . Ashc roft , 364 F.3d 1013, 1023 (9th C ir. 2004); Matte r of Lozada , 19 I. & N. De c . 637, 639 (B IA 1988). Eve n if it we re not proc e dura lly ba rre d , tha t

1 Nguy e n phy sic a lly

e nte re d the Unite d State s pursua

nt to a grant of pa

role on De c e m

be r 14, 2006. W

he n his pa

role e xpire d on June13, 2007, Nguy e n wa s re store d by

ope ration of la

w to the sta

tus he he ld a

t the tim e he wa s gra

nte d pa role

— i.e . , sta tus a s a n a lie n se e king a dm ission. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1182(d)(5)(A); 8 C .F.R . § 212.5(e )(2)(i). Thus, Nguy e n wa s prope rly re ga rde d a s a n a lie n se e king a dm ission when

he wa s se rve d with theNotic e to Appe ar on De c e m be r 21, 2007. -4-c la im

would fa il on them e rits. Nguy e n ha s not shown tha t his form e r attorne y ’ s c onduc t fe ll “ outsidethe wide range of re a sona b l e re pre se ntation.” Torre s-C hav e z v . Holde r , 567 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th C ir. 2009). On the c ontra ry , Nguy e n’ s form e r attorne y dilige ntly

pursue d the only

c la im tha t offe re d Nguy e n a

ny hope of re lie f — Nguy e n’ s a

pplic ation for de fe rra l of re m ova l unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture . W e DENY IN PAR T the pe tition for re vie w of the B IA’ s de c ision on the m e rits of Nguy e n ’ s re m ova l orde r, No. 10-71050. W e a d dre ss the re m a inde r of that pe tition in a

publishe d Opinion file d c onc urre ntly with this M e m orandum disposition. We DENY the pe titions for re vie wof the B IA’ s de nia ls of Nguy e n’ s m otions to re ope n a

n d re c o n side r, Nos. 10-72974 a nd 10-73904. Pe tition No. 10-71050 DE NIE D IN PART . Pe tition No. 10-72974 DE NIE D . Pe tition No. 10-73904 DE NIE D.

-5-