Antonio Orozco-Gaeta v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTONIO OROZCO-GAETA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73942
Agency No. A090-004-634
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Antonio Orozco-Gaeta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations due to
* 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
NOV 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-73942
ineffective assistance of counsel, and we review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s
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 declining to reopen based on
ineffective assistance of counsel where Orozco-Gaeta failed to comply with the
procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and
failed to show prejudice from the performance of former counsel, see Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to
prevail on a due process challenge).
In his opening brief, Orozco-Gaeta does not raise, and therefore waives, any
challenge to the agency’s dispositive determinations that he failed to establish
prima facie eligibility for relief based on changed country conditions. See Lopez-
Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically
raised and argued in an opening brief are waived).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --