JULIAN IVAN MONTES-VARELA, AKA Julian Montes, AKA Julian Ivan Montes v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIAN IVAN MONTES-VARELA, AKA
Julian Montes, AKA Julian Ivan Montes,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70125
Agency No. A076-256-520
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Julian Ivan Montes-Varela, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
remand removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
* 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).
FILED
MAY 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-70125
review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s 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 Montes-Varela’s motion to
remand for failure to show prejudice from any ineffective assistance of counsel,
where he failed to show he had a visa immediately available for adjustment of
status. See Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 793-94 (9th Cir. 2005) (to
demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, petitioner must show he was
prejudiced by counsel’s performance; prejudice results when counsel’s
performance may have affected the outcome of proceedings); 8 U.S.C. §
1255(a)(3) (alien must have a visa immediately available to adjust status). In light
of this dispositive determination, we do not reach Montes-Varela’s remaining
contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts
are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --