Case ID: f-appx_623/html/0356-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eulalio ROMERO-SANCHEZ, aka Eulalio Romero, aka Jason Sagun-Alatorre, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73338.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Nov. 18, 2015.
    
    Filed Nov. 23, 2015.
    Eulalio Romero-Sanchez, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
    Mona Maria Yousif, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eulalio Romero-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’(“BIA”) denial of his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Romero-Sanchez’s motion to reconsider the denial of his cancellation of removal application, where Romero-Sanchez failed to submit evidence establishing that he was no longer convicted of a controlled substance offense for immigration purposes. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C); Murillo-Espinoza v. INS, 261 F.3d 771, 774 (9th Cir.2001) (rehabilitative vacaturs do not remove convictions from consideration for immigration purposes).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Romero-Sanchez’s remaining contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir.2004) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.