SAMUEL MONTERO-PEREYDA, AKA Samuel Mondedo-Cadeda v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL MONTERO-PEREYDA, AKA
Samuel Mondedo-Cadeda,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73185
Agency No. A205-489-582
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Samuel Montero-Pereyda, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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
* 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).
FILED
JUN 15 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-73185
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Martinez-
Hernandez v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2015). We deny the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Montero-Pereyda’s motion
to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to show prejudice.
See Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 793-94 (9th Cir. 2005) (to demonstrate
ineffective assistance of counsel, petitioner must show counsel failed to perform
with sufficient competence and that petitioner was prejudiced by counsel’s
performance; to show prejudice, petitioner must show counsel’s performance was
so inadequate it may have affected the outcome of proceedings).
Because the prejudice determination is dispositive, we do not reach
Montero-Pereyda’s contentions regarding former counsel’s performance. See
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).
Montero-Pereyda’s contention that the BIA applied the incorrect standard
with regard to his claim under the Convention Against Torture is not supported.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --