Andres Mateo-Mateo v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDRES MATEO-MATEO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70873
Agency No. A205-536-302
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Andres Mateo-Mateo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s 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, and review de novo questions of law, including
* 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
SEP 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-70873
claims of due process violations due to ineffective assistance. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Mateo-Mateo’s motion to
reopen due to lack of prejudice from his prior counsel’s performance, where the
evidence submitted with the motion did not show plausible grounds for any relief.
See Martinez-Hernandez v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2015) (to
establish prejudice resulting from ineffective assistance of counsel, petitioner must
show, at a minimum, that the asserted ground for relief is at least plausible).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Mateo-Mateo’s remaining
contentions regarding prior counsel’s performance and compliance with the
procedural 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.

-- 2 of 2 --