
    Ihab Gamal El Din EL ZOHAIRY, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-70913
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 21, 2016
    John D. Friedman, Attorney, Friedman & Ikon, Tarzana, CA, for Petitioner,
    Jeremy M. Bylund, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 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 Lazada, 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 Zo-hairy’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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     