LUIS RICARDO RODRIGUEZ, AKA Luis Armando Ortiz Gomez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS RICARDO RODRIGUEZ, AKA Luis
Armando Ortiz Gomez,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71370
Agency No. A205-311-139
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Luis Ricardo Rodriguez, 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
* 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 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-71370
denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th
Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez’s motion to
reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to establish prejudice,
where he did not show that the evidence submitted with the motion, including the
declaration of Rodriguez’s fiancé, may have affected the agency’s hardship
determination. See Mohammed, 400 F.3d 785, 793-94 (9th Cir. 2005) (to prevail on
an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that
counsel’s performance may have affected the outcome of the proceedings); 8
U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).
Because Rodriguez’s failure to show prejudice is dispositive, we do not
reach his remaining contentions regarding his former attorney’s performance, or
compliance with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See Simeonov
v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --