Case ID: f-appx_552/html/0758-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph Howard Ludena MENDOZA, a.k.a. Jospeh H. Ludena, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70071.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 21, 2014.
    
    Filed Jan. 23, 2014.
    Moby Torres, The Torres Law Firm, Chula Vista, CA, for Petitioner.
    Wendy Benner-Leon, Esquire, OIL, Kathryn DeAngelis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joseph Howard Ludena Mendoza, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, and for substantial evidence the agency’s factual determinations. Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 832 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determinations that Ludena Mendoza failed to establish he had been inspected and admitted into the United States, and that Ludena Mendoza therefore is not eligible for adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (setting forth requirements for adjustment of status); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) (stating that applicant bears the burden of establishing eligibility for relief from removal).

Ludena Mendoza’s claim that the agency employed an unclear standard and failed to develop the record is unsupported by the record.

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