BAUDELIO RODRIGUEZ-FRANQUEZ and MARIA ISABEL RODRIGUEZ PRADO-MEZA v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BAUDELIO RODRIGUEZ-FRANQUEZ
and MARIA ISABEL RODRIGUEZ
PRADO-MEZA,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71269
Agency Nos. A075-716-474
A075-716-473
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Baudelio Rodriguez-Franquez and Maria Isabel Rodriguez Prado-Meza,
natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal
FILED
MAR 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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. 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 petitioners’ motion to
reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where petitioners failed to
establish prejudice resulting from their prior attorney’s alleged ineffective
assistance. See id. at 793 (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim,
a petitioner must demonstrate that he was prejudiced by counsel’s performance).
We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard in
its prejudice determination.
Because the prejudice determination is dispositive, the BIA did not need to
address petitioners’ contentions regarding their prior attorney’s performance. 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.” (citation omitted)).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen to apply for asylum and related relief, where petitioners did not demonstrate
prima facie eligibility. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13, 1208.16, 1208.18; Najmabadi v.
15-71269 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen
for failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought).
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ request for prosecutorial
discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
Petitioners’ request for referral to the court’s mediation program is denied.
In light of this disposition, we do not address petitioners’ remaining
contentions.
Petitioners’ motion to file their untimely reply brief is granted.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.
15-71269 3

-- 3 of 3 --