Case Name: Ambrocio SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-27
Citations: 256 F. App'x 159
Docket Number: No. 04-71341
Parties: Ambrocio SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 256
Pages: 159–160

Head Matter:
Ambrocio SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-71341.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2007 .
Filed Nov. 27, 2007.
Victor D. Nieblas, Law Office of Victor D. Nieblas Pradis Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department Of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department Of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ambroeio Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to remand, and dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") order denying his application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to remand for abuse of discretion. Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005). We review claims of due process violations due to ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. See Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
We agree with the BIA's conclusion that the performance by prior counsel did not result in prejudice to Sanchez, thus his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice). To the extent Sanchez contends the BIA 'failed to consider some or all of the evidence he submitted with the motion to remand, he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except, as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.