Court Opinion

ID: 9554365
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-08 19:00:50.889706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:33:49.256023
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          AUG 8 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARCELINO MEDINA-MUNGIA,                         No. 21-401
                                                 Agency No.
                Petitioner,                      A205-991-844
  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                              Submitted July 18, 2023 **

Before:         SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

          Marcelino Medina-Mungia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion

to remand removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Movsisian

          *
            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).
v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for

review.

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to remand

where Medina-Mungia failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See

Rodriguez v. INS, 841 F.2d 865, 867 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The formal requirements

of the motion to reopen and those of the motion to remand are for all practical

purposes the same.”); Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir.

2016) (BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie

eligibility for the underlying relief sought).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          2                                  21-401