Miguel De Loera-Garcia v. Jefferson Sessions , 695 F. App'x 249 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL ANGEL DE LOERA-GARCIA, No. 15-73801
Petitioner, Agency No. A076-342-000
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Angel De Loera-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
questions of law, including claims of due process violations due to ineffective
assistance. 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 BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Loera-Garcia’s motion to
reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where Loera-Garcia failed to
establish prejudice resulting from his prior attorney’s alleged ineffective
assistance. See id. at 793-94 (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel
claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel’s performance may have affected
the outcome of the proceedings).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to reopen
proceedings sua sponte, and Loera-Garcia does not raise a claim of error
underlying the sua sponte determination that would invoke our jurisdiction. See
Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Loera-Garcia’s remaining
contentions regarding whether prior counsel erred, and the necessity of complying
with the requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are
not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 15-73801