JOSE ALONSO ZARAGOZA V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 18-72676 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 17 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE MANUEL ALONSO ZARAGOZA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-72676 Agency No. A073-938-744 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 14, 2023** Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Jose Manuel Alonso Zaragoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen his reinstated deportation order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for 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). Because a prior deportation order that has been reinstated “is not subject to being reopened or reviewed,” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), the BIA lacked jurisdiction to consider Alonso Zaragoza’s motion to reopen, see Gutierrez-Zavala v. Garland, 32 F.4th 806, 811 (9th Cir. 2022) (“When the BIA denies a motion to reopen a reinstated removal order on grounds other than a lack of jurisdiction, we may deny a petition challenging that ruling based on the BIA’s lack of jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5).”); Bravo-Bravo v. Garland, 54 F.4th 634, 641 (9th Cir. 2022) (“[U]nder § 1231(a)(5), an alien’s prior removal order and proceedings are not subject to being reopened, and the regulation providing the BIA’s sua sponte reopening authority cannot override that command.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Reyes v. Garland, 11 F.4th 985, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2021) (unlike legislation, judicial decisions are “governed by a fundamental rule of retrospective operation” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Because this determination is dispositive of his claim, we do not address Alonso Zaragoza’s remaining contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 18-72676
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.
