Ihab Gamal El Din El Zohairy v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IHAB GAMAL EL DIN EL ZOHAIRY,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70913
Agency No. A087-236-561
MEMORANDUM*
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
FILED
JUN 21 2016
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 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.
15-70913 2

-- 2 of 2 --