Abel Reyes-Lechuga v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ABEL REYES-LECHUGA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70489
Agency No. A077-068-938
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Abel Reyes-Lechuga, a native and citizen of Mexico and a legal permanent
resident, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
decisions dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
* 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
MAR 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-70489
Torture (“CAT”), and denying his motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey,
538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Because Reyes-Lechuga was found removable due to his offense related to a
controlled substance, our jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of withholding
of removal is limited to colorable constitutional claims and questions of law. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D); Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 448-49 (9th
Cir. 2012). To the extent Reyes-Lechuga contends the agency erred by applying an
incorrect legal standard in its particularly serious crime determination, we reject
this contention because the BIA applied the correct standard. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2); Miguel-Miguel v. Gonzales, 500
F.3d 941, 949 (9th Cir. 2007) (recognizing the “strong presumption” that drug
trafficking offenses are particularly serious). We lack further jurisdiction over
Reyes-Lechuga’s withholding of removal claim. See Pechenkov, 705 F.3d at 448-
49.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Reyes-Lechuga’s motion to
remand where he failed to demonstrate prejudice from his counsel’s alleged
ineffectiveness. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir. 2003)

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-70489
(prejudice required for an ineffective assistance claim).
We do not reach Reyes-Lechuga’s contentions regarding credibility. See
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (review is limited to the
actual grounds relied upon by the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --