#### Victor Manuel LOPEZ-RUIZ, Petitioner, v. *658Michael B. MUKASEY *, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-72201.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 14, 2008.

Filed May 30, 2008.

Christopher J. Stender, Stender *&*Pope, PC, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.

W. Manning Evans, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: RYMER, RAWLINSON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor Alberto R. Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States. Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Victor Manuel Lopez-Ruiz (Lopez-Ruiz) petitions for review of the determination that he is an inadmissible alien who is ineligible for relief from removal due to an Arizona conviction in 1974. Lopez-Ruiz also petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motion to remand.

As an alien charged with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182, Lopez-Ruiz was required to prove that he was “entitled to be admitted” and was “not inadmissible under [8 U.S.C. § 1182].” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(2)(A); *see also Toro-Romero v. Ashcroft,*382 F.3d 930, 936 n. 9 (9th Cir.2004). The evidence presented to the Immigration Judge (IJ) demonstrated that Lopez-Ruiz’s prior conviction was vacated according to Arizona’s rehabilitative statutes. *See*Ariz.Rev.Stat. 13-907(C). Thus, the BIA’s conclusion that Lopez — Ruiz was inadmissible and ineligible for relief from removal based on his prior conviction was not erroneous. *See Nath v. Gonzales,*467 F.3d 1185, 1188-89 (9th Cir.2006) (stating that a vacated conviction may serve as the basis for removal if the conviction was vacated for equitable or rehabilitative reasons).

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Lopez-Ruiz’s remand motion. Because Lopez-Ruiz failed to seek registry under 8 U.S.C. § 1259 before the IJ, he was required to present a *prima facie*case for relief before the BIA and explain why he failed to present the proffered evidence to the IJ. *See Rodriguez v. INS,*841 F.2d 865, 867 (9th Cir.1988), *as amended*(noting that the requirements for a motion to remand are the same as for a motion to reopen). Lopez-Ruiz could not make a *prima facie*showing of eligibility for registry because of his inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182 for a violation of narcotics laws. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1259. Further, Lopez-Ruiz provided no evidence that was unavailable and could not have been discovered or presented before the IJ. *See Rodriguez,*841 F.2d at 867. Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez—Ruiz’s motion. *See de Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales,*503 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir.2007) (articulating standard of review).

Lopez-Ruiz’s reliance on *Sandoval-Lua v. Gonzales,*499 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir.2007), does not change our view. That case addressed the burden of proof in the differ*659ent context of application of the “modified categorical analysis” to the “aggravated felony” determination under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. *Id.*at 1130.

PETITION DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-p.