Luciano Duran-Arreola v. Jefferson Sessions

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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