FABIAN MANCINAS-HERNANDEZ, AKA Alonso Mancinas-Hernandez v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FABIAN MANCINAS-HERNANDEZ,
AKA Alonso Mancinas-Hernandez,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71562
Agency No. A201-022-232
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Fabian Mancinas-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 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, and review de novo questions of law.
* 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
OCT 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-71562
Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 921, 923 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny
the petition for review.
The BIA did not err, abuse its discretion, or violate due process in denying
Mancinas-Hernandez’s motion to remand, where he did not demonstrate that the
new evidence submitted would likely have changed the outcome of his case. See
Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (a motion to remand must
show that “if proceedings were reopened, the new evidence would likely change
the result in the case” (citation omitted)); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process
claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --