NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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