Luis Enrique Pacheco v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ENRIQUE PACHECO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-73296
Agency No. A091-144-131
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Luis Enrique Pacheco, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen his reinstated removal
* 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 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-73296
proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the
petition for review.
Because a prior removal order that has been reinstated “is not subject to
being reopened or reviewed,” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), the agency lacked jurisdiction
to consider Pacheco’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).”); Cuenca v. Barr, 956 F.3d 1079, 1084 (9th Cir. 2020)
(“[T]his Court repeatedly has interpreted [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(a)(5) as divesting the
BIA of jurisdiction to reopen a removal proceeding after reinstatement of the
underlying removal order.”).
Because this determination is dispositive of his claim, we do not address
Pacheco’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 --