MEMORANDUM **

Edwin Washington Meza Guachamin, a native and citizen of Ecuador, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision denying his motion to reopen and reconsider his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(1). We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

To the extent the BIA decided not to reopen under its sua sponte authority, we lack jurisdiction to review it. See MejiaHernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).

Even assuming that the lawyer performed ineffectively, there was no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to reopen, because Petitioner failed to show prejudice. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir. 2003) (requiring prejudice to prevail on an ineffective assis *821 tance claim). Petitioner failed to show what additional evidence would have been offered had the BIA reopened the proceedings. See id.

With respect to the motion to reconsider and the underlying merits, we lack jurisdiction to review the hardship determinations. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.