PADILLA SALDANA v. BARR (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

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 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 Doissaint 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.