NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAURICIO MAGDALENO

- MONTES,

Petitioner,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH , Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 09

- 73099 Agency No. A086

- 980

- 944

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Homeland Security Submitted May 8, 2015 ** Pasadena, California Before: BEA and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges and RICE, *** District Judge. Mauricio Magdaleno

- Montes, a native and citizen of Mexico, pet itions for review of a Department of Homeland Security order reinstating his prior order of removal, as well as the related denial s of his applications for a waiver of

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

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Thomas O. Rice, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAY 20 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

in admissibility and for adjustment of status . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition in part and dismiss in part. U.S. Citizen ship and Immigration Serv ices properly denied Magdaleno

- Montes’s applications for a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(ii) (an “I

- 212 waiver”) and for adjustment of status. Magdaleno

- Montes is permanently inadmissible because he was previously removed. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i). Further, Magdaleno

- Montes is not eligible for an I

- 212 waiver because he did not remain outsid e the United States for more than ten years following his last departure. See Carrillo de Palacios v. Holder , 708 F.3d 1066, 1073 & n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) ; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(ii)

. Because Magdaleno

- Montes was permanently inadmissible , his ine ligibility for an
I

- 212 waiver also made him ineligible for adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(2)(A) ; Gonzales v. Dep ’ t of Homeland Sec

. , 508 F.3d 1227, 1242 (9th Cir. 2007) (“ [P] laintiffs as a matter of law are not eligible to adjust their status because they are ineligible to receive I

- 212 waivers

. ”)

. Thus, we deny the petition with respect to Magdaleno

- Montes’s challenge to the denials of his applications for an
I

- 212 waiver and adjustm ent of status

. 1

1 Because his ineligibility for an I

- 212 waiver was a sufficient basis for USCIS’s denial of his applications, we need not consider Magdaleno

- Montes’s challenge to USCIS’s additional basis for its denial, relating to the reinstatement of his prior removal order.3

Because Magdaleno

- Montes was ineligible for an I

- 212 waiver and adjustment of status , the reinstatement of his prior removal order was also proper

. See Gonzales , 508 F.3d at 1231 , 1242. Thus, we also deny the petition with respect
to th e challenge to the reinstatement order

. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g); Vilchiz

- Soto v. Holder , 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) ( citing § 1252(g) for the proposition that “w e lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contention that the agency abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen to seek prosecutorial discretion based on the recent order of President Obama ” ). Thus, we dismiss the petition with respect to Magd aleno

- Montes’s request for a remand to allow the agency to reconsider the exercise of its discretion

. 2 DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

2 Magdaleno

- Montes’s motion to supplement the administrative record is GRANTED.