NOT FOR PUBLICATION

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELADIO MONROY-MARTINEZ, AKA 

Jauneduardo M. Castellanos, AKA Eladio 

Martinez Monroy, AKA Eladio Monroy, 

AKA Eladio Monroy Martinez, AKA Jose 

Angel Monroy-Martinez, AKA Carlos 

Olvera-Islas, AKA Arturo Ortega Olivera, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting 

Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-73094 

Agency No. A077-093-039 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 14, 2019**

San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Eladio Monroy-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 18 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his motion to reopen. We review 

denials of reopening for abuse of discretion and will reverse if the denial is 

arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 

(9th Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The Board did not 

abuse its discretion, so we deny the petition. 

On December 21, 1998, an IJ ordered Monroy-Martinez’s removal to 

Mexico. He subsequently reentered the United States, and on April 11, 2014, the 

Department of Homeland Security reinstated his prior removal order. Since it has 

been reinstated, the prior removal order “is not subject to being reopened or 

reviewed,” and Monroy-Martinez “is not eligible and may not apply for any relief”

under the immigration laws. Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 808 (9th Cir. 

2018) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5)). But see id. (describing exception for 

withholding of removal or relief under CAT).1 Accordingly, the Board did not 

have the statutory authority to reopen Monroy-Martinez’s removal order. 

We recognize that the Board did not base its denial of reopening on this 

ground. Our review is typically limited to “[t]he grounds upon which . . . the 

 

1 To the extent Monroy-Martinez sought withholding of removal or relief under 

CAT, he has not challenged the agency’s denial of those forms of relief—he 

challenges only the agency’s denial of his motion to reopen, which would have 

allowed him to additionally pursue asylum relief.
3 

record discloses that [the agency’s] action was based.” Hernandez-Cruz v. Holder, 

651 F.3d 1094, 1109 (9th Cir. 2011) (alterations in original) (quoting SEC v. 

Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 87 (1943)). However, this doctrine has no application 

where the agency, as here, was required to deny reopening under the applicable 

law. See Morgan Stanley Capital Grp. Inc. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish 

Cty., Wash., 554 U.S. 527, 544–45 (2008). “That it provided a different rationale 

for the necessary result is no cause for upsetting its ruling” because to remand 

“would be an idle and useless formality” and would otherwise “convert judicial 

review of agency action into a ping-pong game.” Id. at 545 (quoting NLRB v. 

Wyman–Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759, 766–67, n.6 (1969)). 

To the extent Monroy-Martinez challenges the decision not to reopen 

proceedings sua sponte, we lack jurisdiction to review it absent a claim of legal or 

constitutional error. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016). 

PETITION DENIED.