ADAN PARTIDA-NUNEZ V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-73239 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 30 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ADAN PARTIDA-NUNEZ, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-73239 Agency No. A088-738-940 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Adan Partida-Nunez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review * 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). for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to show prejudice, where PartidaNunez offered no new contentions or evidence of plausible grounds for relief, and therefore did not establish that prior counsel’s performance may have affected the outcome of his proceedings. See Morales Apolinar v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 2008) (to establish prejudice resulting from counsel’s deficient performance in failing to apply for relief, a petitioner must show plausible grounds for relief). The record does not support Partida-Nunez’s contention that the agency ignored evidence of his alleged eligibility for relief or that it failed to provide sufficient reasoning. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010). Because these determinations are dispositive, we do not reach PartidaNunez’s contentions regarding his prior counsel’s performance. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to reach non-dispositive issues). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-73239
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
