
    Roberto GARCIA-ROSALES, AKA Javier Chavez, AKA Raul Juarez Martinez, AKA Roberto Rosales-Piedra, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-72222
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 20, 2017
    Jeffrey D. Gold, The Law Offices of Jeffrey D Gold, Norwalk, CA, for Petition- . er
    Robbin Kinmonth Blaya, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ — 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: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Roberto Garcia-Rosales, 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 review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo constitutional claims. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying Garcia-Rosales’ motion to reopen as untimely, where he filed the motion more than ten months after his final order of removal, and failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); 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); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).

Because the timeliness determination is dispositive, we do not consider Garcia-Rosales’ remaining contentions regarding the alleged ineffectiveness of prior counsel or his eligibility for relief. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).

Garcia-Rosales’ request to stay his removal is denied as moot. The currently effective temporary stay of removal will expire upon issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     