NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ESMERALDA CARBALLO RAMIREZ, No. 16-71083
Petitioner, Agency No. A061-141-792
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Esmeralda Carballo Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s removal order, and denying her motion to remand.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to remand, and review de novo constitutional claims. Vargas-
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 923, 921 (9th Cir. 2007). We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d
1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Carballo Ramirez’s motion
to remand based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where she failed to establish
prejudice resulting from her prior attorney’s alleged ineffective assistance. See
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 793-94 (9th Cir. 2005) (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).
To the extent Carballo Ramirez challenges the agency’s finding of
removability, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that she is
removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i), where she knowingly assisted
another alien in seeking entry into the United States in violation of the law. See
Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 592 (9th Cir. 2005) (requiring an
affirmative act of assistance in order to establish alien smuggling). Carballo
Ramirez did not demonstrate that her statements to immigration officials at the
border were inaccurate or obtained by coercion. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308,
310 (9th Cir. 1995) (the sole test for admission of evidence is whether the evidence
is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair; information on an
2 16-71083
authenticated immigration form is presumed to be reliable in the absence of
evidence to the contrary presented by the alien).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Carballo Ramirez’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.
3 16-71083