Muhammad Kashif v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MUHAMMAD KASHIF,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73441
Agency No. A097-689-514
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 22, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Muhammad Kashif, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) order denying his motion to
reissue the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision based on ineffective assistance of
counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
OCT 26 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

discretion, Hernandez-Velasquez v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2010), and we
deny the petition for review.
In his motion to reissue, Kashif alleged his former counsel provided him
with ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to inform him that the IJ reissued
its January 11, 2011, order on June 7, 2011, in order to allow Kashif to perfect his
appeal timely or file a motion to reopen.
The Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Kashif's motion for failure
to comply with the procedural requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. &
N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988), where Kashif failed to include evidence that the
letter he claimed to have sent to the State Bar of Nevada was in fact filed or that he
notified his prior attorney of the allegations against him and gave him an
opportunity to respond. Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597-99 (9th Cir. 2004).
Further, the State Bar rule Kashif cites to argue his attorney would have been
notified of the complaint does not state whether or when an attorney is notified
unless the State Bar’s action is a private reprimand. Kashif also failed to submit an
affidavit with his motion that “set forth in detail the agreement that was entered
into” with his former counsel. See Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1023 (9th
Cir. 2004).
12-73441 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Regardless of the threshold procedural requirements set forth in Lozada, the
Board’s conclusion that the motion did not establish a prima facie ineffective
assistance of counsel claim based on the administrative record did not constitute an
abuse of discretion. See Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d at 1023. The facts on which
Kashif relies to make his claim are not clear on the face of the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-73441 3

-- 3 of 3 --