N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R ONALD TALLEDO,

Pe t i tione r, v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 13-72981 Age n c y No. A047-672-841 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

June 15, 2018 ** Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : TASHIM A, W . FLETC HER , a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. R ona ld Ta lle do pe titions for re vie w of a n orde r of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) dism issing his a ppe a l from

a fina l orde r of re m ova l . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we de ny

the pe tition. 

# FIL ED JUL 17 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Pe rsons found ina dm i ssible due to willful m isre pre se ntation or fra

ud m ay a pply for a wa ive r of tha

t ina dm issibility

ground if the y

are the spouse , son, or da ughte r of a

la wful pe rm ane nt re side nt (LPR) and e s ta blish tha t re m ova l would re sult in e xtre m e ha

rdship to the

LPR . 8 U.S.C . § 1182(i). Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the

B IA’ s de c ision tha

t Ta lle do’ s pa

re nts a ba ndone d the ir le ga l LPR sta tus. An LPR

doe s not re ta in he r status a fte r le aving the Unite d State s unle ss she

“ re turn[s] to a

n unre linquishe d

la wful pe rm ane nt re side nc e a fte r a te m pora ry visit a broa d .” K hoshfahm v . Holde r , 655 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th C ir. 2011) (quota tion m arks a nd c ita tions omitte d). “ A trip is a ‘ te m pora ry visit a broa d ’ if (a ) it is for a

‘ re lative ly short’ pe riod, fixe d by

som e e arly e ve nt; or (b) the trip will term i nate upon the oc c urre nc e of a

n e ve nt tha

t ha s a re a s ona ble possibility

of oc c urring within a re lat ive l y short pe riod of tim e .” Singh v . Re no , 113 F.3d 1512, 1514 (9th C ir. 1997) (c ita

tion om itte d). The LPR

m ust a lso m a inta in a

n “ inte n t to re turn to the U nite d State s within a re lative ly short pe riod.” Id. Ta l le do’ s pa re nts we re both pe rm ane nt re side nts in thepa st. B ut the y ha d be e n a

b se nt from

the Unite d State s for te n y e ars at the tim e of Ta lle do’ s re m ova l he aring a nd the re is no e v ide nc e tha t the y m a i nta ine d a

n inte nt to re t

urn throughout tha

t tim e . The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Ta lle do’ s m o tion to re m and. The B IA will not gra

nt a m otion to re m and unle ss “ the e vide nc e re ve a ls a

2re a s ona

ble like lihood tha

t the sta tutory re quire m e nts for re lie f ha v e be e n sa

tisfie d.” Garc ia v . Holde r , 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th C ir. 2010) (quoting Ordone z v . IN S , 345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th C ir.2003)). Ta lle do m e t his burde n of showing tha t he like ly ha d a qua lify i ng re lative . Photoc opie s of Ta l le do’ s pa re nts’ pa s sports show tha t the y have now obta ine d a

“ IR -5” or im

m e diate re lative visa s, a

nd re e nte re d the c ountry . Se e U.S. De p ’ t of Sta t e , F amily -Base d Immigrant Visas , ava ila ble a t https://tra ve l.sta te .gov/c onte nt/tra

ve l/e n/us-visa s/im

m igrate / fa m ily -im m igration/fa

m ily -ba se d-im

m igra nt-visa s.htm l; se e also U.S. De p’ t of Stat e , W hat the Visa Ex piration Date

Me ans , av a ila

ble a t https://tra

ve l.sta te . gov/ c onte nt/tra

ve l /e n/us-visa s/visa -inform a tion-re sourc e s/visa -e xpira t ion-da te .htm l; K ate r v . C hurc h ill Downs Inc ., 886 F.3d 784, 788 n.3 (9th C ir. 2018) (“ W e grant Ka te r’ s m otion to ta

ke judic ia l notic e of the slide show, m e e ting m inute s , a n d pam phle t be c a

u s e the y are public ly

ava i la ble on the W a shington governm e n t we bsite , a nd ne ithe r pa

rty dispute s the a

uthe ntic ity

of the we b site nor the a c c ura c y of the inform a tion.” ). Ta lle do, howe v e r, subm itte d no inform a tion showing how his pa re nts will e xpe rie nc e ha

rdship now tha

t the y have re e n te re d the Unite d Stat e s. He thus ha s not e sta b lishe d a like lihood of e sta

b lishing tha

t sta tutory re quire m e nt.

3Fina lly , Ta l le do is not e ligiblefor an INA § 237(a )(1)(H) wa ive r. 8 U.S.C . §

1227(a )(1)(H). Only

pe rsons “ in a

n d a dm itte d” to the c ountry are e ligiblefor the wa ive r. Id. § 1227(a ). The c ustom s offic ia l tha t disc ove re d Ta lle do’ s fra u d re fuse d to a d m it him into thec ountry . Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(13)(A). Ta lle do c annot ta ke a dva nta ge of the m o re pe rm issive de finition of “ a dm itte d” in 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(13)(C ) be c a

use he wa s not law

fully a dm i tte d for pe rm ane nt re side nc e . Hing Sum v . Holde r , 602 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th C ir. 2010); In re K oloamatangi , 23 I. & N. De c . 548, 549 (B IA 2003). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

4