FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELLIOT NILSSON GARCIA-CASTRO, No. 07-74544
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-321-175
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Elliot Nilsson Garcia-Castro, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order and denying his motion to
remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
*
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).
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 ineffective assistance of
counsel, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny
the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in finding that Garcia-Castro had not shown prejudice
from former counsel’s failure to request he be granted asylum nunc pro tunc, to
apply for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1159, or to apply for relief under
the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, where Garcia-Castro
failed to establish that he qualified for such relief. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321
F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir. 2003) (prejudice results when the performance of
counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the
proceedings). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying
Garcia-Castro’s motion to remand.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 07-74544