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

APETYAN, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 09-73933 Age n c y No. A096-494-304 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 Fe brua

ry 5, 2013 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, W . FLETC HER , a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r Tat e vik Ha

yra pe ty an a p pe a ls from

the B o ard of Im

m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA’ s) de nia l of he r m otion to re ope n he r c a se ba se d on ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we a ffirm . 

# F IL ED JAN 14 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).W e re vie w the B IA’ s de nia l of a m otion to re ope n for a

buse of disc re tion, C ano-Me rida v . I.N

.S ., 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th C ir. 2002); its dete rm ination of que stions of la

w, inc luding c l a im s of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l, de novo, Mohamme d

v . Gonzale

s , 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th C ir. 2005); a nd its fa c tua l findings for substa

ntia l e vide nc e , id . W hile the re is no Sixth Ame ndm e nt right to c ounse l in de porta tion proc e e dings, the Fifth Am e ndm e nt’ s due proc e s s c la u se e n sure s tha

t no pe titione r’ s proc e e ding is “ so funda

m e nta lly unfa ir tha

t [she is] pre ve nte d from

re a sona bly pre s e nting [he r] c a se .” Gonzale s , 400 F. 3d a

t 793. To pre va i l on a c la im of ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l, the pe t itione r m ust show (1) tha

t he r c ounse l pe rform e d de fic ie ntly , a

nd (2) tha t she wa s pre

judic e d by

tha t de fic ie nt pe rform a nc e . Id. Hayra

pe ty an c annot m ake e ithe r showing. Ha yra pe ty an a rgue s that he r a ttorne y

pe rform e d de fic ie ntly

by withdra w ing he r a

pplic a tion for a djustm e nt of sta

tus a nd re que sting volunta

ry de pa rture a s a n a lte rna tive form

of re lie f. Unde r Ninth C irc uit c a se la w, howe ve r, c ounse l’ s ta c tic a l de c ision, e v e n if

“ unwise ” in re trospe c t, doe s not a m ount to de fic ie n t pe rform anc e unle ss pe titione r c an show tha

t the de c ision fe l l be low the le ve l of profe s siona l c om pe te n c e . Se e Magallane

s -Damian v . I.N

.S ., 783 F.2d 931, 934 (9th C ir. 1986). Give n Hayra pe ty an’ s inc onsiste nt te s tim ony re ga rding whe the r she e nte re d the Unite d -2-Stat e s without inspe c t i on, a nd the a bse nc e of any

e vide n c e c orroborating he r late r c la im tha t she e nte re d with inspe c t ion, we c annot c onstrue he r c ounse l’ s re c o m m e nde d c ourse a s a

ny thing othe r tha

n a de fe nsible ta c tic a l de c ision. Eve n if we we re to by

pa s s this first ste

p, Ha yra pe ty an c annot sa

t isfy the se c o nd. He r re pre se ntation tha t she e nte re d the Unite d State s without inspe c tion, m a de through two differe nt a ttorne y s at

two diffe re nt he a

rings, fore c lose s a

ny c la im tha t she w a s pre

judic e d, a s he r uninspe c te d e ntry into theUnite d State s m a de he r ine ligiblefor a djustm e nt of sta tus unde r § 245(i) of the Im m igration a

nd Nationa l ity

Ac t . AFFIRM E D.

-3-