NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUCIANO DURAN-ARREOLA, AKA No. 15-73825
Luciano Arreola,
Agency No. A202-014-701
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Luciano Duran-Arreola, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 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 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).
discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d
1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We review de novo claims of due process violations.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying
Duran-Arreola’s motion to remand, where he did not show the alleged ineffective
assistance of counsel may have affected the outcome of his proceedings. See id. at
793-94 (to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, petitioner must show
counsel failed to perform with sufficient competence and that petitioner was
prejudiced by counsel’s performance; to show prejudice, petitioner must show
counsel’s performance was so inadequate it may have affected the outcome of
proceedings).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 15-73825
Luciano Duran-Arreola v. Jefferson Sessions
Combined Opinion