FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDUARDO ARTURO CARDENAS- No. 13-70213
SOSA,
Agency No. A205-314-034
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Eduardo Arturo Cardenas-Sosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to remand based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial
*
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).
of a motion to remand, Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005),
and review de novo questions of law, 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 Cardenas-Sosa’s motion to
remand on the ground that he did not establish prejudice where he has not
identified what additional evidence his former counsel should have submitted to
the immigration judge in support of cancellation of removal, or articulated a
specific claim for additional forms of relief. See id. at 793-94 (prejudice results
when counsel’s performance “was so inadequate that it may have affected the
outcome of the proceedings”); see also Ortiz v. INS, 179 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th
Cir. 1999) (no prejudice where petitioners failed to describe the evidence that
counsel incompetently failed to introduce). It follows that his due process claim
fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and
prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
We lack jurisdiction to review Cardenas-Sosa’s unexhausted claim that he
received ineffective assistance from his former attorney who represented him
before the BIA. See Puga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812, 815-816 (9th Cir. 2007)
(ineffective assistance of counsel claims must be raised in a motion to reopen
before the BIA).
2 13-70213
The Clerk shall also serve a copy of the order on Cardenas-Sosa at Pinal
County Adult Detention Center, 971 N. Jason Lopez Circle, Building B, Florence,
AZ 85132. Cardenas-Sosa is reminded that local court rules require petitioner to
keep the court informed of his current address. See 9th Cir. R. 46-3.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-70213