Case ID: f-appx_616/html/0345-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sergio SALGADO-SALINAS, AKA Andres Guttierez-Peralta, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-71243.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 28, 2015.
    John Martin Pope, Benjamin Wiesinger, Pope & Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Andrew B. Insenga, Trial, Karen L. Melnik, Trial, OIL, 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: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sergio Salgado-Salinas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his application for cancellation of removal, and denying his motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1097-98 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Salgado-Salinas’ motion to remand, where Salgado-Salinas failed to establish that the evidence he submitted was unavailable at the time of his removal hearing. See Rodriguez v. INS, 841 F.2d 865, 867 (9th Cir.1988) (“Since a motion to remand is so similar to a motion to reopen, the motion to remand should be drafted in conformity with the regulations pertinent to motions to reopen[.]” (internal citation omitted)); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (“A motion to reopen proceedings shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing[.]”).

It follows that the BIA did not violate due process in denying Salgado-Salinas’ motion to remand. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice).

In his opening brief, Salgado-Salinas fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any challenge to the BIA’s grounds for dismissal of his appeal. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir.2013) (a petitioner waives a contention by failing to raise it in the opening brief).

The government’s August 12, 2015, motion to lift the abeyance is denied as moot.

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