JOSE AGUILAR-CORTES V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-70024 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 20 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE AGUILAR-CORTES, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-70024 Agency No. A073-940-045 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 15, 2017** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Jose Aguilar-Cortes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual * 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). determinations regarding inadmissibility. Abufayad v. Holder, 632 F.3d 623, 631 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review. Aguilar-Cortes raises no contentions regarding the agency’s determination that the admissions and concessions in his written pleadings make him inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(II) and therefore ineligible for adjustment of status, and thus he waives challenge to this dispositive determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(2) (to be eligible for adjustment of status, an alien must be admissible); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(II) (any alien who has been ordered removed under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) and reenters the United States without being admitted is inadmissible); Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in an opening brief are waived). In light of this disposition, we need not address Aguilar-Cortes’ remaining contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (the court is not required to make findings on issues unnecessary to the result reached). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-70024

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.