Case Name: Samuel Guerrero VERDEJA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-22
Citations: 439 F. App'x 589
Docket Number: No. 07-73510
Parties: Samuel Guerrero VERDEJA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 439
Pages: 589–590

Head Matter:
Samuel Guerrero VERDEJA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73510.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 22, 2011.
Jasmin J. Kim, Esquire, James A. Stanton, Esquire, Stanton Law Group, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
HI-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Honolulu, HI, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Rosanne Perry, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Samuel Guerrero Verdeja, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's removal order and denying his motion for remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to remand, Garcia-Quintero v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Guerrero Verdeja's motion to remand where Guerrero Verdeja was not eligible for adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)(2); Corona-Mendez v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir.2010) (where an alien is inadmissible on more than one ground he is not "otherwise admissible" for purposes of waiver eligibility).
In light of our disposition, we do not address Guerrero Verdeja's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.