NAZARIO NOLASCO-ALONZO, AKA Nazaro Nolasco v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NAZARIO NOLASCO-ALONZO, AKA
Nazaro Nolasco,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70363
Agency No. A077-199-957
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Nazario Nolasco-Alonzo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
JAN 27 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.
2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Nolasco-Alonzo’s motion to
reopen alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, where Nolasco-Alonzo did not
comply with the procedural requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N.
Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the ineffective assistance he alleges is not plain on the
face of the record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597-99 (9th Cir. 2004).
Because the BIA’s determination that Nolasco-Alonzo failed to comply with
the threshold requirements to bring an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is
dispositive, we need not reach his contentions regarding his underlying conviction.
See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a general rule
courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of
which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
14-70363 2

-- 2 of 2 --