RUBEN RAMIREZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 15-71068 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 19 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUBEN RAMIREZ, No. Petitioner, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-71068 Agency No. A092-268-259 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
