IHAB EL ZOHAIRY V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 15-70913 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 21 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IHAB GAMAL EL DIN EL ZOHAIRY, Petitioner, No. 15-70913 Agency No. A087-236-561 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Ihab Gamal El Din El Zohairy, a native and citizen of Egypt, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for adjustment of status. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The agency did not err in denying El Zohairy’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to establish prejudice, where he has not shown how different conduct by his prior attorney may have affected the outcome of proceedings. See id. at 793 (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that he was prejudiced by counsel’s performance). In light of the dispositive determination that El Zohairy did not establish prejudice, we do not reach his contentions regarding his compliance with the threshold requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004). We lack jurisdiction to consider El Zohairy’s unexhausted claim that he should be permitted to seek relief based on changed circumstances. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 15-70913

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.