see Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1226-27 (9th Cir. 2002). Moreover, because it would have been futile for Kaur to inform Kang of the accusations or to give him an opportunity to respond, her failure to satisfy this requirement does not bar her ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Morales Apolinar v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir.2008). 3. Finally, the BIA abused its discretion in concluding that Kaur did not demonstrate “the necessary prejudice resulting from the ineffective assistance of Kang that would establish a due process violation.” The BIA erred as a matter of law in requiring Kaur to show “that the alleged ineffectiveness affected the outcome of the proceedings” (emphasis added). See Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855, 858-59 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Kaur was required to show only that Kang’s
holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen holding that the bia abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen when it failed to consider the argument before it holding that the bia abused its discretion by weighing the evidence of prejudice under an unduly stringent standard holding that the bia abused its discretion in issuing an incomplete and nonsensical opinion that failed to consider the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner holding that the bia abused its discretion when it denied petitioners motion to reopen by failing to consider evidence of country conditions