
    Miguel Angel De LOERA-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-73801
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 14, 2017
    Omar Nakib, Attorney, Law Office of Stephen Coghlan, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner
    ' Anna E. Juarez, 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: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Miguel Angel De Loera-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his mption to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations due to ineffective assistance. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Loera-Garcia’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where Loera-Garcia failed to establish prejudice resulting from his prior attorney’s alleged ineffective assistance. See id. at 793-94 (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel’s performance may have affected the outcome of the proceedings).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte, and Loera-Garcia does not raise a claim of error underlying the sua sponte determination that would invoke our jurisdiction. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Loera-Garcia’s remaining contentions regarding whether prior counsel erred, and the necessity of complying with the requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). 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 in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     