Court Opinion

ID: 9374668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 18:01:06.332646+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:52.431915
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS ENRIQUE PACHECO,                           No.    19-73296

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A091-144-131

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Luis Enrique Pacheco, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen his reinstated removal

      *
             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).
proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the

petition for review.

      Because a prior removal order that has been reinstated “is not subject to

being reopened or reviewed,” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), the agency lacked jurisdiction

to consider Pacheco’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).”); Cuenca v. Barr, 956 F.3d 1079, 1084 (9th Cir. 2020)

(“[T]his Court repeatedly has interpreted [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(a)(5) as divesting the

BIA of jurisdiction to reopen a removal proceeding after reinstatement of the

underlying removal order.”).

      Because this determination is dispositive of his claim, we do not address

Pacheco’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                                    19-73296