JAIRO APITZIN MENDOZA-PEREZ, AKA Jairo Apitzin, AKA Jairo Apitzin Mendoza, AKA Jairo… v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAIRO APITZIN MENDOZA-PEREZ,
AKA Jairo Apitzin, AKA Jairo Apitzin
Mendoza, AKA Jairo Mendoza-Apitzin,
Jairo Aditzin MendozaPerez, AKA Jairo
Apitzin Mendozh,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-73422
Agency No. A073-828-339
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Jairo Apitzin Mendoza-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
* 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
MAY 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-73422
from an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings
conducted in absentia. 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. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition
for review.
The BIA did not err or abuse its discretion in denying Mendoza-Perez’s
motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to comply
with the procedural requirements in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA
1988), where he admitted he had not notified either of his attorneys of his
allegations against them and afforded them the opportunity to respond. See
Correa-Rivera v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1128, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2013) (an alien
alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must, among other requirements, notify
his former counsel of the allegations and afford counsel the opportunity to
respond).
In light of this disposition, we need not address Mendoza-Perez’s
contentions regarding the merits of his ineffective assistance claim. 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).
Mendoza-Perez’s contention that denying his motion would lead to an

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-73422
unconscionable result is not supported, where the missed opportunity to defend his
application for cancellation of removal does not amount to an unconscionable
result. Cf. Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding the
agency should not deny reopening where denial would lead to the unconscionable
result of removing an alien who is eligible for relief; INS conceded alien was
eligible for adjustment of status and would not have been ordered deported had he
appeared at his hearing).
We are not persuaded that the BIA overlooked meaningful facts. See
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“What is required is
merely that [the BIA] consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms
sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and
not merely reacted.” (citation omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --