Court Opinion

ID: 9380242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 18:00:50.149012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:23.691362
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 17 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE MANUEL ALONSO ZARAGOZA,                    No.    18-72676

                Petitioner,                     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