Gregorio Alberto Vasquez- Barrios v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORIO ALBERTO VASQUEZ-
BARRIOS,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73310
Agency No. A071-593-821
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Gregorio Alberto Vasquez-Barrios, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
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 review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
* 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
OCT 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-73310
reopen and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d
785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not err or abuse its discretion in denying Vasquez-Barrios’
motion to reopen as untimely, where he filed it more than two years after his final
order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), and he
failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N.
Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), see Singh v. Holder, 658 F.3d 879, 884 (9th Cir. 2011)
(Lozada compliance required to qualify for equitable tolling of the filing deadline
based on ineffective assistance of counsel).
Because the timeliness issue is dispositive, the BIA did not err in not
reaching the merits of Vasquez-Barrios’ claims for adjustment of status, nor do we
reach it here. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts
and agencies are not required to reach non-dispositive issues). We also need not
reach Vasquez-Barrios’ contentions regarding prejudice.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --