N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JENAR O M OR

ALES FLORES, Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-71302 Age n c y No. A073-967-288
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 Fe brua

ry 6, 2023 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B OGGS, * ** IKUTA, a nd DESAI, C irc uit Judge s . Je na ro M o ra l e s Flore s (M ora le s Flore s) a p pe a ls the de c ision of theB oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s (B IA) dism issing his a ppe a l from

an Im m igration Judge ’ s 

# FIL ED FEB 9 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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).

* * * The Honora

ble Da nny J. B oggs, Unite d

Stat e s C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.(IJ) de c ision de ny ing his m o tion to re ope n proc e e dings sua sponte to a llow him

to
a pply for a djustm e nt of sta

tus. Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w a de n ia l of sua

sponte re ope ning e xc e pt for “ the lim ite d purpose of re vie wing the re a soning be hind thede c i sion for le ga l or
c onstitutiona

l e rror.” Bonilla v . Ly nc h , 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th C ir. 2016). M ora le s Flore s ha s forfe ite d any argum e nt tha

t the B IA c om

m itte d a le ga l
or c onstitutiona

l e rror in de ny ing his motion to re ope n a s untim e ly an d num be r ba rre d by fa i ling to ra ise the issue on a ppe a l. S e e Floy d v

. Filson , 949 F.3d 1128, 1138 n.2 (9th C ir. 2020). Nor did the B IA c om m it a le ga l or c onstitutiona

l e rror in holding tha

t M ora le s Flore s fa i le d to show prima fa c ie e ligibility for a d justm e nt of sta tus, be c a use M ora le s Flore s is not a n a l ie n “ inspe c te d a

nd a dm itte d or pa

role d into theUnite d State s,” and so doe s not m e e t the thre shold re quire m e nt for
a djustm e nt of sta

tus. 8 U.S.C . § 1255(a ). M o ra le s Flore s’ s a rgum e nt tha

t he will be e l igible for a djustm e nt of sta tus if he is gra

nte d pa role in pla c e , whic h m ay
oc c ur if the B IA re ope ns his proc e e dings to allow him to a pply for pa role -in-pla c e , is spe c ulative , a

n d doe s not de m onstra

te prim a fa c ie e ligibility for re lie f. S e e id .;
se e a lso Obitz v . Dist. Dir. of IN S , 623 F.2d 1331, 1332 (9th C ir.1980) (e n ba nc ). Fina lly , the B IA did not c om m it a le ga l or c onstitutiona

l e rror by fa iling to provide a dditiona l e xpla

nation to support its c onc lusion tha t M ora le s Flore s wa s
2not prim a

fa c ie e ligiblefor a djustm e nt of sta tus. S e e IN S v . Abudu , 485 U.S. 94, 104–05 (1988). The B IA did c om

m it a le ga l e rror, howe v e r, in de ny ing M o ra le s Flore s’ s
re que s t to te rm inate his re m ova l proc e e dings on the ground tha

t he “ did not identify
a le ga l ba sis for te rm i nation.” In re a c hing this de c ision, theB IA re l ie d on Matte r of S-O-G- & F-D-B- , 27 I. & N. De c . 462, 463 (A.G. 2018), whic h he ld tha t a n IJ
c ould ge n e ra lly t e rm inate re m ova l proc e e dings only whe n pe rm i tte d by

the
a pplic a ble re gula tions, se e 8 C .F.R . § 1239.2(c ), (f). On Nove m be r 17, 2022, a fte r the d ate of the B IA’ s de c ision he re , the Attorne y Ge ne ra l ove rrule d Matte r of S-O-G- & F-D-B- , a

n d inste a d he ld tha

t IJ’ s and the B IA have the disc re tion to gran t te rm ination in lim

ite d c i rc um sta

nc e s tha t a re not ide ntifie d in the a

pplic a ble
re gula tions, inc luding whe n “ te rm ination is ne c e ssa ry for the re sponde nt to be
e ligibleto se e k im

m igration re lie f” be fore the Unite d State s C itiz e nship a nd Im m i gration Se rvic e s. Matte r of C oronado Ac e v e do , 28 I. & N. De c . 648, 651–52 (A.G. 2022). 1 B e c a

use the B IA’ s de nia l of M ora le s Flore s’ s re que st for te rm inat ion
wa s “ pre m i se d on a

n e rrone o us le ga l unde rsta nding,” Bonilla , 840 F.3d a t 589, we

1 On Ja nua ry 31, 2023, the

gove rnm e nt file d a

n unoppose d m otion to re m and this m atte r to the B IA in light of this c ha nge in the la

w. 3m

ust re m and to theB IA “ t o e xe rc ise its disc re tion a ga i nst the c orre c t le ga l fra m e work,” id. at 592. 2 DISM ISSE D IN PART ; V ACAT E D AND RE M ANDE D IN PART .

2 B e c a use this disposition re solve s M ora le s Flore s’ s pe tition for re vie w, we de ny the gove rnm e nt’ s re q

ue s t to sta y proc e e dings in this c ourt. The B IA is the a ppropria te body to gra nt the gove rnm e nt’ s re que s t for a sta y . Dk t 38
. Se e Ramire z Sanc h e z v . Muk ase y , 508 F.3d 1254, 1256 n.2 (9th C ir. 2007) (pe r c uriam ). Ea c h pa

rty sha l l be ar its own c osts on a ppe a l. W e a l so de ny

a s m oot the pe titione r’ s m otion for a

sta y of re m ova l pe nding a

ppe a l. D k t 1
. 4