MIGUEL ANGEL JUAREZ RAMIREZ, AKA Ramirez Angel Juarez v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL ANGEL JUAREZ RAMIREZ,
AKA Ramirez Angel Juarez,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71258
Agency No. A096-318-931
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 18, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Angel Juarez Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law.
* 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
SEP 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-71258
Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Juarez Ramirez’s motion to
reopen for failure to show prejudice from any alleged ineffective assistance of
counsel, where he did not show what testimony, evidence, or argument his former
counsel should have presented that may have changed the outcome of proceedings.
See Martinez-Hernandez v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2015) (to show
prejudice, “a petitioner must show counsel’s performance was so inadequate that it
may have affected the outcome of the proceedings” (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted)). Contrary to Juarez Ramirez’s contention, the BIA cited and
applied the correct standard. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980
(9th Cir. 2009) (the agency applies the correct legal standard where it expressly
cites and applies relevant case law).
In light of this determination, we do not consider Juarez Ramirez’s
contentions regarding due diligence. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538
(9th Cir. 2004) (the courts and the agency are not required to make findings on
issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --