Alvaro Rivas-Pineda v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALVARO RIVAS-PINEDA, No. 16-71420 Petitioner, Agency No. A099-470-987 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 15, 2017** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Alvaro Rivas-Pineda, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, * 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). 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rivas-Pineda’s motion to reopen for failure to establish that he was prejudiced by the alleged ineffectiveness of his prior attorney where the BIA addressed issues on appeal despite them not being raised in Rivas-Pineda’s brief, and where the BIA previously considered and rejected his purportedly new social group and also denied relief on a separate dispositive ground. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir. 2003) (“To show a deprivation of due process caused by ineffective assistance of counsel, the alien must show that counsel's ineffective performance prejudiced h[im].”) (citation omitted). Because the prejudice determination is dispositive, we do not reach Rivas- Pineda’s remaining contentions regarding compliance with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), or prior counsel’s performance. 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. 2 16-71420 16-71420 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Alvaro Rivas-Pineda v. Jefferson Sessions 20 November 2017 Agency Unpublished 670e915e2c498b73bee510a6d36f8ffbad0c81c7

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals