Case Name: Florencio ESQUIVELLARA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-17
Citations: 570 F. App'x 645
Docket Number: No. 10-72633
Parties: Florencio ESQUIVELLARA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and PRATT, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 570
Pages: 645–646

Head Matter:
Florencio ESQUIVELLARA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-72633.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 9, 2014.
Filed April 17, 2014.
Kanwal Minder Singh, Esquire, Law Office of Kanwal Singh, Modesto, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jeffery R. Leist, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and PRATT, Senior District Judge.
The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner, Florencio Esquivel-Lara, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") that he was not eligible for adjustment of status. To qualify, he had to have been "admitted" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a).
Petitioner had previously adjusted his status to that of a temporary resident, but failed to apply for permanent resident status within forty-three months as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(b)(2)(C). The parties now agree that this case is controlled by our court's recent decision in United States v. Hernandez-Arias, 745 F.3d 1275, 12-50193, 2014 WL 1099414 (9th Cir. March 21, 2014), where we held that such failure to apply for adjustment to permanent residence results in reversion to the prior "unadmitted" status.
Accordingly, the petition must be DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.