Case Name: Pedro Arturo SALMERON-SALMERON, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-04
Citations: 694 F. App'x 196
Docket Number: No. 16-2209
Parties: Pedro Arturo SALMERON-SALMERON, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 694
Pages: 196–197

Head Matter:
Pedro Arturo SALMERON-SALMERON, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 16-2209
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 28, 2017
Decided: August 4, 2017
Bradley B. Banias, BARNWELL, WHALEY, PATTERSON, AND HELMS, Charleston, South Carolina, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director, Jennifer A. Bowen, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pedro Arturo Salmeron-Salmeron, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's decision denying his motion to reopen. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board's order and find no abuse of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b) (2017). We therefore deny the petition for review substantially for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Salmeron-Salmeron (B.I.A. Oct. 14, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
We note that Salmeron-Salmeron failed to establish that he was prejudiced by former counsel's alleged ineffective assistance as required by In re Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 640 (B.I.A. 1988). See Zelaya v. Holder, 668 F.3d 159, 166 (4th Cir. 2012) (noting that resisting gang recruitment is "an amorphous characteristic providing neither an adequate benchmark for determining group membership nor embodying a concrete trait that would readily identify a person as possessing such a characteristic"); In re S-E-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 579 (B.I.A. 2008) (holding that harm or threats inflicted for refusal to join a gang, without more, does not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground). Accordingly, even if Salmeron-Salmeron could establish that he informed former counsel prior to the entry of his pre-conclusipn voluntary departure order that he feared harm in El Salvador, a remand under INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002), would not be warranted "[bjecause the result of a remand to the Board is a foregone conclusion such that remand would amount to nothing more than a mere formality." Hus-sain v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 153, 158 (4th Cir. 2007).