Case ID: f-appx_637/html/0460-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Miguel Castellanos MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-71384.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
    
    Filed March 1, 2016.
    Miguel Castellanos Martinez, Ontario, CA, pro se.
    Erick Garcia Hernandez, Law Office of Erick Garcia, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Nicole Thomas-Dorris, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Miguel Castellanos Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal and denying his motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Castellanos Martinez’s motion to remand for failure to establish prejudice, where Castellanos Martinez failed to explain what evidence prior counsel failed to submit that may have affected the outcome of his proceedings. Martinez-Hernandez v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1086, 1089 (9th Cir. 2015) (finding the petitioner could not establish prejudice where he had offered no argument or evidence to back up his claim for relief); see also Ortiz v. INS, 179 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir.1999) (denying the petition where petitioners requested remand to explain eligibility for asylum, but failed to establish what evidence they would present on remand).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.