Marco Antonio Corona- Contreras v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCO ANTONIO CORONA-
CONTRERAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73794
Agency No. A089-854-130
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Marco Antonio Corona-Contreras, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his
motion to remand based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We have
FILED
OCT 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-73794 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s
denial of a motion to remand, Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062
(9th Cir. 2008), and review de novo due process claims based on ineffective
assistance of counsel, 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 by denying Corona-Contreras’s motion
to remand for failure to show prejudice, where he did not present any evidence that
the actions of his former attorney might have affected either his ability to
demonstrate eligibility for cancellation of removal before the immigration judge or
the viability of his appeal to the BIA. See id. at 793-94 (“[P]rejudice results when
the performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the
outcome of the proceedings.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see
also United States v. Ross, 338 F.3d 1054, 1056 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam)
(holding that a disbarred attorney is not per se ineffective).
In light of this disposition, we decline to address Corona-Contreras’s
contention that his former attorney’s performance was ineffective. See
Mendez-Alcaraz v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 842, 844 (9th Cir. 2006) (declining to reach
nondispositive challenges to a BIA order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --