Ruben Ramirez v. Loretta E. Lynch , 671 F. App'x 601 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUBEN RAMIREZ, No. 15-71068
Petitioner, Agency No. A092-268-259
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Ruben Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions
*
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).
of law. Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez’s motion to reopen,
where Ramirez sought to reopen his proceedings to pursue adjustment of status,
but submitted with his motion only the application for the pending I-130 visa
petition filed on his behalf and not the application for adjustment of status. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (“A motion to reopen proceedings for the purpose of
submitting an application for relief must be accompanied by the appropriate
application for relief and all supporting documentation.”); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1245.2(a)(2)(i)(B) (an application for adjustment of status can be filed
concurrently with a pending immediate relative visa application); see also
Tadevosyan v. Holder, 743 F.3d 1250, 1252 (9th Cir. 2014) (alien submitted
pending visa petition, adjustment of status application, and supporting document
with the motion to reopen).
Ramirez’s contention that the BIA violated due process by not providing an
explanation for its decision is not supported.
In light of this decision, we need not address Ramirez’s contentions
regarding prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status. See Simeonov v.
2 15-71068
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-71068