Case Name: Gregorio Alberto VASQUEZ-BARRIOS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-03
Citations: 698 F. App'x 376
Docket Number: No. 14-73310
Parties: Gregorio Alberto VASQUEZ-BARRIOS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 376–377

Head Matter:
Gregorio Alberto VASQUEZ-BARRIOS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-73310
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 26, 2017
FILED OCTOBER 3, 2017
Merlyn Noure Hernandez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Wendy Benner-Leon, Esquire, OIL, 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: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gregorio Alberto Vasquez-Barrios, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not err or abuse its discretion in denying Vasquez-Barrios' motion to reopen as untimely, where he filed it more than two years after his final ordipr of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), and he failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), see Singh v. Holder, 658 F.3d 879, 884 (9th Cir. 2011) (Lozada compliance required to qualify for equitable tolling of the filing deadline based on ineffective assistance of counsel).
Because the timeliness issue is disposi-tive, the BIA did not err in not reaching the merits of Vasquez-Barrios' claims for adjustment of status, nor do we reach it here. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to reach non-dis-positive issues). We also need not reach Vasquez-Barrios' contentions regarding prejudice.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.