Luis Pacheco v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 22 2023
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    LUIS ENRIQUE PACHECO,                           No.    19-73296
    Petitioner,                     Agency No. A091-144-131
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
    General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted February 14, 2023**
    Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    Luis Enrique Pacheco, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review
    of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
    immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen his reinstated removal
    *
    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).
    proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We deny the
    petition for review.
    Because a prior removal order that has been reinstated “is not subject to
    being reopened or reviewed,” 
    8 U.S.C. § 1231
    (a)(5), the agency lacked jurisdiction
    to consider Pacheco’s motion to reopen, see Gutierrez-Zavala v. Garland,
    
    32 F.4th 806
    , 811 (9th Cir. 2022) (“When the BIA denies a motion to reopen a
    reinstated removal order on grounds other than a lack of jurisdiction, we may deny
    a petition challenging that ruling based on the BIA’s lack of jurisdiction under
    
    8 U.S.C. § 1231
    (a)(5).”); Cuenca v. Barr, 
    956 F.3d 1079
    , 1084 (9th Cir. 2020)
    (“[T]his Court repeatedly has interpreted [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(a)(5) as divesting the
    BIA of jurisdiction to reopen a removal proceeding after reinstatement of the
    underlying removal order.”).
    Because this determination is dispositive of his claim, we do not address
    Pacheco’s remaining contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 
    371 F.3d 532
    , 538
    (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results
    they reach).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                    19-73296
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-73296

Filed Date: 2/22/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/23/2023