ANTONIO OROZCO-GAETA V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 16-73942 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 23 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTONIO OROZCO-GAETA, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-73942 Agency No. A090-004-634 MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. 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). 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 LopezVasquez 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 16-73942

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.