Ismael Rivas Cotas v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 15 2023
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ISMAEL RIVAS COTAS, AKA Ismael                  No.    20-70219
    Rivas Cota,
    Agency No. A205-272-235
    Petitioner,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
    MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
    General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted February 13, 2023**
    San Francisco, California
    Before: MILLER, SANCHEZ, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.
    Ismael Rivas Cotas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
    the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision, affirming the Immigration
    Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under
    *
    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).
    
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    , and we deny the petition.
    Petitioner contends the BIA erred in denying sua sponte reconsideration
    based on our decision in Lorenzo v. Sessions, 
    902 F.3d 930
     (9th Cir. 2018),
    withdrawn on denial of reh’g sub nom. Lorenzo v. Whitaker, 
    913 F.3d 930
     (9th Cir.
    2019), and superseded sub nom. Lorenzo v. Whitaker, 
    752 F. App’x 482
     (9th Cir.
    2019). Because Lorenzo v. Sessions was withdrawn and superseded by a non-
    precedential memorandum disposition, the BIA did not err in concluding that
    petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is not supported by binding circuit
    precedent. See Grimm v. City of Portland, 
    971 F.3d 1060
    , 1067 (9th Cir. 2020).
    Moreover, United States v. Rodriguez-Gamboa, 
    972 F.3d 1148
     (9th Cir.
    2020), forecloses petitioner’s claim. Rodriguez-Gamboa held “as a matter of law,
    that California’s definition of methamphetamine is a categorical match to the
    definition under the federal [Controlled Substances Act].” 
    Id.
     at 1154 n.5. The BIA
    did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
    See Ayala v. Sessions, 
    855 F.3d 1012
    , 1020 (9th Cir. 2017).
    PETITION DENIED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-70219

Filed Date: 2/15/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/15/2023