LUIS RODRIGUEZ V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, III, No. 17-71370 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 13 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS RICARDO RODRIGUEZ, AKA Luis Armando Ortiz Gomez, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-71370 Agency No. A205-311-139 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 10, 2018** Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Luis Ricardo Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the * 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). 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 denying Rodriguez’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to establish prejudice, where he did not show that the evidence submitted with the motion, including the declaration of Rodriguez’s fiancé, may have affected the agency’s hardship determination. See Mohammed, 400 F.3d 785, 793-94 (9th Cir. 2005) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel’s performance may have affected the outcome of the proceedings); 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). Because Rodriguez’s failure to show prejudice is dispositive, we do not reach his remaining contentions regarding his former attorney’s performance, or compliance with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 17-71370

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.