Case ID: f-appx_690/html/0472-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gurmukh SINGH, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 18-72892
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 26, 2017
    Audra Rose Behne, Law Office of Audra R. Behne, Encino, CA, for Petitioner
    Ann M. Welhaf, Attorney, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gurmukh Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1262. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations due to ineffective assistance. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where Singh failed to establish prejudice resulting from his prior attorney’s alleged ineffective assistance. See id, at 793-94 (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).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Singh’s unexhausted contention regarding his wife’s asylum status. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).

We do not reach Singh’s remaining contentions regarding equitable tolling, the alleged ineffectiveness of prior counsel, and his compliance with the requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA); 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 in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.