PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION
Pleva and the Law Offices of Jan Allen Reiner on brief for
A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Division, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Office of
Immigration Litigation, and Sabatino F. Leo, Trial Attorney,
Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, on brief
Torruella, Lipez, and Barron, Circuit Judges.
Mark Kwadwo Kuffour challenges the Board of Immigration
Appeals' ("BIA" or "Board") denial of
his motion to reconsider its order refusing to reopen his
case. Finding no abuse of discretion, we deny his petition
is a citizen of Ghana who unlawfully entered the United
States in 1997. In July 2009, he was served with a notice to
appear charging him with removability. Kuffour engaged
attorney Obadan Iziokhai, who submitted pleadings on his
behalf seeking cancellation of removal based on hardship to
his U.S.-citizen daughter and voluntary departure.
See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b), 1229c(b).
However, Iziokhai withdrew from representing Kuffour at the
start of his March 2014 removal hearing, and Kuffour
proceeded at the hearing pro se.
Immigration Judge ("IJ") denied Kuffour's
request for cancellation of removal on the ground that he had
not shown that his daughter would suffer the requisite
"exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to
justify that relief. See id. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).
The IJ also denied voluntary departure. Kuffour then hired
attorney Randy Feldman to assist him in filing an appeal to
the BIA, Kuffour challenged the IJ's voluntary departure
ruling and asked, based on an executive order, that the Board
administratively close his proceedings. He did not appeal the
denial of cancellation of removal. The BIA affirmed the
IJ's denial of voluntary departure and declined to
administratively close the proceedings. Kuffour once again
obtained new counsel and moved to reopen the proceedings
based on the asserted ineffective assistance of his two
previous attorneys. Kuffour claimed that the attorneys'
deficient representation had "eliminated [his] right to
pursue his application for Cancellation of Removal and
thereby to potentially remain in the United States if his
application was granted." Kuffour claimed that, but for
the ineffective assistance, he would have provided documents
showing his eligibility for cancellation of removal; however,
he did not submit such documents with the motion to reopen.
denying the motion to reopen, the BIA observed that Kuffour
had "proffered no evidence in support of his asserted
eligibility for either cancellation of removal . . . or . . .
voluntary departure" and, hence, had failed to show
"patent error or prejudice." The BIA also found
that the motion did not comply with the procedural
requirements for bringing an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim in immigration proceedings. See Punzalan v.
Holder, 575 F.3d 107, 109 n.1 (1st Cir. 2009);
Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA
did not file a petition for review of that decision, but he
instead sought reconsideration from the BIA. In his motion to
reconsider, Kuffour asserted that the BIA made factual errors
when it concluded that he had neither proven eligibility for
cancellation of removal nor shown ineffective assistance of
counsel. He further claimed that the BIA "made a mistake
of fact and law" when it concluded that he had not
satisfied the procedural requirements for an ineffective
denied the motion to reconsider. It observed, inter alia,
that Kuffour "does not identify any prior argument
presented on appeal that was overlooked by the Board[;] nor
does [he] identify any error of law or fact in the [original]
decision based on the record then before the Board." The
BIA also reiterated that Kuffour had not complied with the