FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAFAEL GUITRON-BARAJAS, No. 14-73190
Petitioner, Agency No. A093-069-166
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Rafael Guitron-Barajas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings and to reissue its previous decision dismissing his appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
*
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).
denial of a motion to reopen and a motion to reissue. Hernandez-Velasquez v.
Holder, 611 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo constitutional
claims. Id. We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Guitron-Barajas’ motion to
reopen based on alleged ineffective assistance before the agency for failure to
establish prejudice. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899-900 (to establish
ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show prejudice).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to reissue its May 31, 2013,
order, where Guitron-Barajas does not dispute that he had an opportunity to file a
timely petition for review before this court. See Singh v. Napolitano, 649 F.3d
899, 901 (9th Cir. 2011) (the BIA has reissued decisions where an alien has shown
lack of notice due to administrative error or ineffective assistance of counsel).
Contrary to Guitron-Barajas’ contention, the BIA also did not abuse its discretion
in declining to consider his counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance before this
court. See In re Compean (Compean II), 25 I. & N. Dec. 1, 3 (A.G. 2009).
Contrary to Guitron-Barajas’ contentions, the BIA sufficiently articulated its
reasoning, did not ignore contentions, and applied the proper legal standard. See
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010).
2 14-73190
Accordingly, the BIA did not violate due process in denying the motion. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must demonstrate error
and prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Guitron-Barajas’ remaining
contentions regarding diligence and attorney error before the agency.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-73190