PAUL ROMAN-SOTO, AKA Paul Roman, AKA Paul Soto v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL ROMAN-SOTO, AKA Paul Roman,
AKA Paul Soto,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-71230
Agency No. A200-963-647
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Paul Roman-Soto, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
* 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
FEB 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-71230
denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th
Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Roman-Soto’s motion to
reopen for his failure to establish prejudice where, even without the alleged
ineffective assistance, he would be ineligible for cancellation of removal because
he had not accrued 10 years of continuous physical presence. See Iturribarria v.
INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir. 2003) (“To show a deprivation of due process
caused by ineffective assistance of counsel, the alien must show that counsel’s
ineffective performance prejudiced h[im].” (citation omitted)).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in not making a finding as to whether
Roman-Soto’s former attorney persuaded him to testify falsely, where the
determination that he was not prejudiced by any ineffective assistance was
dispositive. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (the BIA is
not required to make findings on issues that are unnecessary to the result it
reaches). Roman-Soto’s contention that it is unclear whether the BIA considered
the bar complaint filed against his former attorney is not supported by the record.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Roman-Soto’s unexhausted contentions
regarding the quality of his former attorney’s briefing before the agency and
whether the former attorney’s performance prejudiced him with regard to being
denied voluntary departure. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-71230
2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented to the
agency in the alien’s proceedings).
To the extent Roman-Soto challenges the agency’s prior determinations on
direct appeal, this petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1);
Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 2005) (the filing of a
subsequent motion does not affect the finality or reviewability of a previous order
of removal).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --