United States v. 2020-11-20 | 18-72104 | IMAD ABOUD V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IMAD ABOUD; RODINA ABBOUD;
HANIN ABBOUD; SHIRIN ABBOUD;
NADIN ABBOUD; MARON ABBOUD,
Petitioners,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-72104
Agency Nos. A098-515-824
A098-150-502
A098-150-503
A098-150-504
A098-150-505
A098-150-506
MEMORANDUM
*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2020
**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and MENDOZA,
***
District
Judge.

FILED
NOV 20 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
* *
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
* * *
The Honorable Salvador Mendoza, Jr., United States District Judge
for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.

Imad Aboud, Rodina Abboud, and their four children are all natives and
citizens of Israel. They entered this country in 2004 on tourist visas. After
protracted asylum proceedings, they were ordered removed in 2009. Their first
petition for review by this court was dismissed as untimely in 2011, with a footnote
adding that even if the petition had been timely, the court would have denied the
petition on the merits. Aboud v. Holder, 446 F. App'x. 25, 26, 27 n.3 (9th Cir.
2011). Two motions for reopening and two attorneys later, this court dismissed the
Abouds’ second petition for review for failure to exhaust one of their arguments.
Aboud v. Sessions, 706 F. App'x 359 (9th Cir. 2017).
In this third motion to reopen before the BIA, the Abouds claimed changed
country conditions and, in a reply, raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim
in relation to their first petition. The BIA denied the motion, holding that the
Abouds had not established changed country conditions or ineffective assistance of
counsel.
The Abouds are Palestinian Greek Orthodox Christians and have described
attacks in Israel on account of their religion. In this motion to reopen, they
presented evidence of generally increased anti-Christian violence in Israel,
particularly following the United States’ recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s
2

capital, as well as evidence of specific threats to the Abouds’ remaining family
members and associates in Israel.
The government concedes that remand is appropriate on the changed country
conditions claim, although it does not concede that reopening should be granted.
Our court has recognized that changed circumstances, even in the context of
ongoing conflict, can create changed circumstances authorizing reopening. Malty
v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004). Here the petitioners presented not
only evidence of generally increased violence directed at Christians but also
evidence of more recent specific threats to family members and others in Israel.
We therefore hold that the BIA should grant reopening on remand. See id. at
945–47.
The BIA, however, did not err in denying reopening on the basis of
ineffective assistance of counsel. One such claim appears to relate to the Abouds’
first attorney’s failure to file a timely petition to this court in 2009. Although the
attorney’s performance may well have been deficient, this court expressly noted
that the petition would have been denied on the merits in any event. Aboud v.
Holder, 446 F. App'x. at 27 n.3. The Abouds therefore cannot establish that the
deficiency resulted in any prejudice, as required to succeed on an ineffectiveness
claim. See Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 793 (9th Cir. 2005).
3

We therefore grant the petition in part and remand for the BIA to grant
reopening to consider the claim of changed country conditions. The petition is
otherwise denied.
GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and REMANDED.
Each party shall bear its own costs and fees.
4