LUCIANO DURAN-ARREOLA, AKA Luciano Arreola v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUCIANO DURAN-ARREOLA, AKA
Luciano Arreola,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73825
Agency No. A202-014-701
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
MAR 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-73825
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 of 2 --