N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ELIAS B ELTR

AN R ASC ON, Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-70900 Age n c y No. A088-771-875
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 Oc tobe r 10, 2017 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

N NLAIN, TASHIM A, a

nd B YB E E, C i rc u it Judge s. Elia s B e ltra

n-R a sc on pe titions for re vie w of the B o ard of Im m igration Appe a l’ s (“ B IA’ s” ) de c ision holding him ine ligible to a djust his sta tus to la w ful pe rm ane nt re side nt a

nd orde ring him

re m ove d if he doe s not volunta rily de pa rt the 

# FIL ED OCT 12 2017 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).Unite d

State s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(5). Our re vie w is de
novo. Se e Garfias-Rodrigue z v . Holde r , 702 F.3d 504, 512 n.6 (9th C ir. 2012) (e n ba nc ). For the re a sons sta

te d be low, we de ny

the pe t ition for re vie w. A. Be ltran-Rasc on Is Inadmissible unde r § 212(a)(9)(C

)(i)(I) and The re

fore Ine ligible for Adjustment of Status unde r § 245(a). Unde r § 212(a )(9)(C )(i)(I) of the Im m igration a

nd Na tiona lity Ac t (“ INA” ),
any a lie n who “ h a s be e n unla wfully pre se nt in theUnite d State s for a n a ggre gate pe riod of m ore tha

n 1 y e a r . . . a nd who e nte rs or atte m

pts to re e n te r the Unite d Stat e s without be ing a dm itte d is ina dm issible .” 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(9)(C )(i)(I). The purpose of the sta

tute is “ to singleout re c i divist im m igration viola

tors a nd
m ake it m ore diffic ult for the m to be a dm i tte d to the Unite d State s a fte r having de pa rte d.” C arrillo de Palac ios v . Holde r , 708 F.3d 1066, 1074 (9th C ir. 2013) (quoting In reBrione

s , 24 I. & N. De c . 355, 358 (B IA 2007)). In this c a se , B e ltra

n-R a sc on a dm its he e nte re d the Unite d State s without inspe c tion a

round Ja nua ry 2002. He furthe r a dm its he volunta rily de pa rte d for M e x ic o in M arc h 2008 be fore re e nte ring the Unite d State s in April 2008, a ga in without inspe c t ion. Thus, it is undispute d he wa s unla

wfully pre se nt in theUnite d Stat e s for a

n a g gre g a te pe riod of m ore tha n one y e ar an d tha

t he subse que n tly
re e n te re d the Unite d Stat e s without be ing a dm itte d. He is ina dm issibleunde r

2§ 212(a )(9)(C )(i)(I).

INA § 245(a ) pe rm its a djustm e nt of sta tus only if the a l ie n, a

m ong othe r things, is “ e ligibleto re c e ive an im m igra n t visa an d is a dm issibleto the Unite d Stat e s for pe rm an e nt re side nc e .” 8 U.S.C . § 1255(a ). B e c a use B e ltra n-R a sc on is ina d m issibleunde r § 212(a )(9)(C )(i)(I), he is ine l igible for a djustm e nt of sta tus to pe rm ane nt la

wful re side nt. Se e Garfias-Rodrigue z , 702 F.3d a

t 514; se e also C arrillo de Palac ios , 708 F.3d a

t 1072; Brione

s , 24 I. & N. De c . at 358. B
. The BIA C

o rre c tly Applie d N

inth C irc u it Law

, and Re gardle ss, the Same Re sult W ould Obtain unde

r Te nth C irc uit Law
. B e ltra n-R a s c o n a

rgue s the la

w of the Unite d State s C o urt of Appe a ls for the Te nth C irc uit should gove rn his a pplic a tion for a djustm e nt of sta tus. An Im m i gration Judge(“ IJ” ) who he ars re m ova l proc e e dings “ ha s e x c lusive jurisdic tion to a djudic ate any a pplic ation for a djustm e nt of sta tus . . . .”8 C .F.R
. § 1245.2(a )(1)(i). Appe l late re vie w of the IJ’ s de c ision is proper in “ t he c ourt of
a ppe a ls for the judic ia l c irc uit in whic h the im m igration judge c om

ple te d the proc e e dings.” 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(2). He re , the unde rly ing re m ova l proc e e dings a nd B e ltra n-R a sc o n’ s re ne we d
a pplic a tion for a d

justm e nt of sta

tus we re he ard in Tuc son, Ariz ona . Appe lla te
re vie w of those proc e e d i ngs la y in the Ninth C irc uit, a

nd the IJ a

nd B IA we re

3c orre c t to a

pply Ninth C irc uit la

w. Se e id. R e ga

rdle ss, a pply i ng Te nth C i rc uit la

w would m ake no diffe re n c e he re . The Te nth C irc uit, likeour c irc uit, ha s he ld tha t ina d m issibility

unde r § 212(a )(9)(C )(i)(I) pre c l ude s a d justm e nt of sta

tus to la wful pe rm ane nt re side nt. P adilla-C a lde ra v . Holde r , 637 F.3d 1140, 1153 (10th C ir. 2011). Thus, irre s pe c tive of whe the r Ninth or Te nth C irc uit la w gove rns, B e ltra

nR a sc on is ine ligiblefor a djustm e nt of sta tus. The pe tition for re vie w is DENIED.

4