Nazario Nolasco-Alonzo v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JAN 27 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    NAZARIO NOLASCO-ALONZO, AKA                      No. 14-70363
    Nazaro Nolasco,
    Agency No. A077-199-957
    Petitioner,
    v.                                              MEMORANDUM*
    LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted January 20, 2016**
    Before:        CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    Nazario Nolasco-Alonzo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
    review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
    reopen removal proceedings on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. We
    have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 
    400 F.3d 785
    , 791 (9th Cir.
    2005), and we deny the petition for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Nolasco-Alonzo’s motion to
    reopen alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, where Nolasco-Alonzo did not
    comply with the procedural requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N.
    Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the ineffective assistance he alleges is not plain on the
    face of the record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 
    358 F.3d 592
    , 597-99 (9th Cir. 2004).
    Because the BIA’s determination that Nolasco-Alonzo failed to comply with
    the threshold requirements to bring an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is
    dispositive, we need not reach his contentions regarding his underlying conviction.
    See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 
    371 F.3d 532
    , 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a general rule
    courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of
    which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                   14-70363
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-70363

Judges: Canby, Tashima, Nguyen

Filed Date: 1/27/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024