ALVARO RIVAS-PINEDA V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-71420 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 20 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALVARO RIVAS-PINEDA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-71420 Agency No. A099-470-987 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 15, 2017** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Alvaro Rivas-Pineda, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions 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 for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, * 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). 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rivas-Pineda’s motion to reopen for failure to establish that he was prejudiced by the alleged ineffectiveness of his prior attorney where the BIA addressed issues on appeal despite them not being raised in Rivas-Pineda’s brief, and where the BIA previously considered and rejected his purportedly new social group and also denied relief on a separate dispositive ground. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir. 2003) (“To show a deprivation of due process caused by ineffective assistance of counsel, the alien must show that counsel's ineffective performance prejudiced h[im].”) (citation omitted). Because the prejudice determination is dispositive, we do not reach RivasPineda’s remaining contentions regarding compliance with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), or prior counsel’s performance. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-71420

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.