FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LODIR MIKAELI SIWAJIAN, No. 08-70845
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-440-629
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Lodir Mikaeli Siwajian, a native and citizen of Lebanon, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
remand, Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008), and
review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings,
Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Siwajian’s motion to remand
because an immigrant visa was not immediately available to him. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1255(a); Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (BIA’s denial of a
motion to remand shall be reversed only if it is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to
law).
Siwajian’s contention that the IJ’s alleged bias violated due process fails
because he did not demonstrate prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246
(9th Cir. 2000) (requiring prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process
claim).
Pro bono counsel’s motion to withdraw from representing petitioner is
granted.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-70845