Carlos Alfredo Castro Pacheco v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS ALFREDO CASTRO
PACHECO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-410
Agency No.
A205-315-602
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Alfredo Castro Pacheco, native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
his motions to terminate and to reopen and removal proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to terminate, Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir.
* 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
JUL 3 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 21-410
2020), and the denial of a motion to reopen, Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581
(9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part, grant in part, and remand in part the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Castro Pacheco’s motion
to terminate proceedings where his challenge to the immigration court’s
jurisdiction is foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187,
1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (lack of hearing information in notice to
appear does not deprive immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction, and
8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) is satisfied when later notice provides hearing
information).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Castro Pacheco’s motion
to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel where he failed to
demonstrate plausible grounds for relief necessary to establish prejudice. See
Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 828 (9th Cir. 2003) (no prejudice
established where motion failed to establish plausible grounds for relief); see
also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s
“desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random
violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Castro
Pacheco’s contentions that the BIA applied an incorrect standard or otherwise
erred in its analysis fail as unsupported by the record.
We do not reach Castro Pacheco’s contentions regarding whether he
complied with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), because the

-- 2 of 4 --

3 21-410
BIA did not deny relief on that ground. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657
F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we
consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Castro Pacheco’s contentions
regarding the one-year filing deadline for asylum. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft,
371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to
decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
Castro Pacheco requests remand for the agency to consider his
cancellation of removal claim. Although he did not exhaust this claim before
the agency, the agency did not have the benefit of our decision in Quebrado-
Cantor v. Garland, 17 F.4th 869, 873-74 (9th Cir. 2021) (notice of hearing did
not cure a deficient notice to appear for purposes of the stop-time rule). Thus,
we grant the petition for review in part and remand Castro Pacheco’s
cancellation of removal claim for further proceedings consistent with this
disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam); see
also Vasquez-Rodriguez v. Garland, 7 F.4th 888, 896 (9th Cir. 2021)
(exhaustion not required where resort to the agency would be futile).
The motion for a stay of removal is granted. The stay of removal remains
in place until the mandate issues.

-- 3 of 4 --

4 21-410
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.

-- 4 of 4 --