Jose Manuel Alonso Zaragoza v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MANUEL ALONSO ZARAGOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-72676
Agency No. A073-938-744
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jose Manuel Alonso Zaragoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen his reinstated deportation order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We deny the petition for review.
* 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
MAR 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-72676
Because a prior deportation order that has been reinstated “is not subject to
being reopened or reviewed,” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), the BIA lacked jurisdiction to
consider Alonso Zaragoza’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).”); Bravo-Bravo v. Garland, 54 F.4th 634, 641 (9th Cir.
2022) (“[U]nder § 1231(a)(5), an alien’s prior removal order and proceedings are
not subject to being reopened, and the regulation providing the BIA’s sua sponte
reopening authority cannot override that command.” (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted)); Reyes v. Garland, 11 F.4th 985, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2021) (unlike
legislation, judicial decisions are “governed by a fundamental rule of retrospective
operation” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
Because this determination is dispositive of his claim, we do not address
Alonso Zaragoza’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 of 2 --