Jesus Padilla Saldana v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 6 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESUS ANTONIO PADILLA SALDANA, No. 17-70146
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-157-179
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 4, 2020**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Antonio Padilla Saldana, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
remand removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
a motion to remand and review de novo claims of due process violations in
*
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).
immigration proceedings. 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 in denying Padilla Saldana’s motion to
remand where he failed to establish prejudice from the alleged ineffective
assistance of former counsel. See id. at 793 (requiring prejudice to state valid
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel).
We do not consider the evidence submitted to this court with Padilla
Saldana’s motion for a stay of removal because this evidence was not part of the
administrative record when the BIA issued the order on review. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(A) (judicial review is limited to the administrative record); see also
Doissant v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2008) (the court considers
only the grounds relied upon by that agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 17-70146