"You're not listening" - What fallacy is this?

Okay so I recognised a pattern, usually in arguments related to friendships or relationships, where a person might say "You're just not listening. If you were, then you'd understand/you'd agree." This is obviously fallacious, either in the way that the person making the statement already assumes they're correct, or because they really don't have a good argument and are just trying to shift blame by accusing the other person of being unable or unwilling to understand them. What fallacy does this fall under and how?

Be careful in assuming intent. While it may be the case that the other person does not have a good argument, it also may be the case that the other person really is not listening. This is common in debate when one person is focused on what they are going to say next, and simply not considering what is being said. However, the line, "if you were, then you'd understand/you'd agree," does make the claim more dubious. The reason is, we can't know if the other person has information that we don't. So the real problem might be that the person making the claim is the one not understanding.

This is more of a combination of poor communication and overconfidence than one of fallacious reasoning. In fact, the continued instance of the other person "not listening" may be a refusal to reason itself (a sort of meta fallacy).

I'd say typically, and almost as a rule of thumb, the person wagging their accusatory finger at another is projecting their own psychological deficiencies in what is known as Mind Projection fallacy. They are quick to make such an accusation because they are intimately familiar with the symptoms, and even quicker to assign it to someone else when they are guilty of it. 

Mind Projection Fallacy comes to mind. It occurs when one considers the way one sees the world as the way the world really is. This fallacy is a subpart of the philosophical issue of metaphysical primacy. There are two options, and no other options. One must choose either (1) the primacy of existence, which means existence ranks first (is primary) before anything else, or (2) the primacy of consciousness, which means consciousness is primary and outranks existence. Intellectually speaking, there is no middle ground. If one contends the world is the way the person sees it or wants it to be, instead of the world being what it is, the person is “projecting” his “mind.” 

Restated: the person’s subjective judgments are “projected” to be inherent properties of an object rather than being related to personal perception. One consequence is that the person “projecting” assumes others share the same perception, or the other person is irrational or misinformed if they do not. In another form, a person assumes that their lack of knowledge about a phenomenon means that the phenomenon is not or cannot be understood. Furthermore, that often introduces at least the Argument from Ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) and the Argument from Incredulity (the Divine Fallacy).

I assume this kind of response happens during or after arguments are being exchanged. In that case, the "you're just not listening" could be said after some rationale is presented from the one part and another rationale is presented from the other part without any of the parties addressing the points of the other one. Or if one of the involved parties ignores the points of the counter-argument. In that case, the "you're not listening" could be a case of avoiding the issue  - and usually the person that resolves in accusing the other person of 'not listening' is the one who is not listening to the other person, because if they did they would refute specific parts of the argument instead of accusing.

The following argument lies under the affirming the consequent fallacy
If you were listening, you'd understand/you'd agree. 
You don't agree.
Therefore, you weren't listening.

But it could also be a valid accusation, if the other person refuses out of stubbornness to accept the validity of an argument ( argument by pigheadedness )

Can depend on the context

In this case, the statement implies that the person who doesn't understand or agree is not listening, rather than addressing the reasons why they might not understand or agree. also of false dilemma by implying that the person is not listening or getting it, when there are other reasons that could explain the disagreement