
    Alvaro RIVAS-PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-71420
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 20, 2017
    Robert G. Berke, Esquire, Attorney, Berke Law Offices, Inc., Canoga Park, CA, for Petitioner
    Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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

Alvaro Rivas-Pineda, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rivas-Pineda’s motion to reopen for failure to establish that he was prejudiced by the alleged ineffectiveness of his prior attorney where the BIA addressed issues on appeal despite them not being raised in Rivas-Pineda’s brief, and where the BIA previously considered and rejected his purportedly new social group and also denied relief on a separate dispositive ground. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir. 2003) (“To show a deprivation of due process caused by ineffective assistance of counsel, the alien must show that counsel’s ineffective performance prejudiced h[im].”) (citation omitted).

Because the prejudice determination is dispositive, we do not reach Rivas-Pineda’s remaining contentions regarding compliance with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), or prior counsel’s performance. 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).

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