NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 15 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL MONTERO-PEREYDA, AKA No. 16-73185
Samuel Mondedo-Cadeda,
Agency No. A205-489-582
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Samuel Montero-Pereyda, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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
*
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).
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Martinez-
Hernandez v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2015). We deny the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Montero-Pereyda’s motion
to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to show prejudice.
See Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 793-94 (9th Cir. 2005) (to demonstrate
ineffective assistance of counsel, petitioner must show counsel failed to perform
with sufficient competence and that petitioner was prejudiced by counsel’s
performance; to show prejudice, petitioner must show counsel’s performance was
so inadequate it may have affected the outcome of proceedings).
Because the prejudice determination is dispositive, we do not reach
Montero-Pereyda’s contentions regarding former counsel’s performance. See
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).
Montero-Pereyda’s contention that the BIA applied the incorrect standard
with regard to his claim under the Convention Against Torture is not supported.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 16-73185