ELIPDIO RAMIREZ-DORANTES, AKA Elpidio Ramirez Dorantes, AKA Elpidio Dorantes Ramirez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELIPDIO RAMIREZ-DORANTES, AKA
Elpidio Ramirez Dorantes, AKA Elpidio
Dorantes Ramirez,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73647
Agency No. A087-747-721
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Elipdio Ramirez-Dorantes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
* 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
APR 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-73647
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo
claims of due process violations. 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 or violate due process in denying
Ramirez-Dorantes’ motion to reopen for failure to demonstrate ineffective
assistance of counsel, where he did not refute his former counsel’s statements
regarding the reasoning for the strategy employed or that former counsel had
discussed Ramirez-Dorantes’ options with him. See id. at 793 (to demonstrate
ineffective assistance of counsel, an alien must show counsel failed to perform
with sufficient competence); Torres-Chavez v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th
Cir. 2009) (aliens are generally bound by strategic and tactical decisions made by
their attorneys); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a
due process challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice).
To the extent Ramirez-Dorantes contends his former counsel erred in failing
to advise him that the agency misapplied the law to the facts of his case, we lack
jurisdiction to consider this unexhausted contention. See Tijani v. Holder, 628
F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not
presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA”). To the extent
petitioner challenges the BIA’s July 2015 order dismissing his appeal, this petition
is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-73647
In light of this decision, we need not reach Ramirez-Dorantes’ contentions
regarding prejudice from any alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --