Julio Adrian Salas v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIO ADRIAN SALAS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 23-586
Agency No. A200-551-350
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 27, 2024**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACH,*** NGUYEN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
* 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).
*** The Honorable Evan J. Wallach, United States Senior Circuit Judge
for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
MAR 29 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Petitioner Julio Adrian Salas, a native and citizen of Mexico, was initially
placed in removal proceedings in 2014, and was denied asylum and relief from
removal, and was ordered removed by the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) on March 29,
2019. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopted and affirmed the IJ’s
decision, and denied Petitioner’s motion to remand.
As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here.
Petitioner timely seeks our review. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252,
and we deny the petition.
Petitioner’s sole argument is that the BIA failed to consider his argument in
his motion to remand that the IJ had failed to inform him about potential relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Petitioner argues that the IJ’s
failure to inform him violated his right to due process. We review denials of
motions to remand for abuse of discretion, Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889
(9th Cir. 2013), and we review due process challenges in immigration proceedings
de novo, Arizmendi-Medina v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1043, 1047 (9th Cir. 2023)
(citing Zetino v. Holder, 622, F.3d 1007, 1011–12 (9th Cir. 2010)). To succeed on
a due process challenge in an immigration proceeding, a noncitizen petitioner must
demonstrate that “(1) the proceeding was so fundamentally unfair that the
[petitioner] was prevented from reasonably presenting his case, and (2) the
[petitioner] demonstrates prejudice, which means that the outcome of the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation.” Id. at 1048
(quoting Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1013).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Petitioner failed to make
any showing of prejudice. Petitioner did not provide the IJ with an I-589 form
with any more content than his name, an Alien Registration Number, and a
checked box indicating his interest in CAT relief. Before the BIA, Petitioner did
not provide a new I-589 with any additional information, nor any other specific
arguments or supporting documentation to support a conclusion he is plausibly
eligible for CAT relief. United States v. Reyes-Bonilla, 671 F.3d 1036, 1049-50
(9th Cir. 2012) (noting that prejudice “requires some evidentiary basis” and “not
merely a showing that some form of immigration relief was theoretically
possible”). Before us, Petitioner does not point to any specific arguments or
supporting documentation provided to the BIA to make the required showing of
prejudice. Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s
motion to remand.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --