Amilcar Aguilar-Navarrete v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

* 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 Robert W. Gettleman, Senior United States District
Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMILCAR AGUILAR-NAVARRETE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70764
Agency No. A024-224-603
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2011 **
Stanford, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, FARRIS, Circuit Judge, and GETTLEMAN,
Senior District Judge. ***
We defer to an agency’s permissible interpretation of a statute. Chevron
U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984); Contract
FILED
DEC 06 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Mgmt., Inc. v. Rumsfeld, 434 F.3d 1145, 1147 (9th Cir. 2006). Congress gave the
Attorney General authority to adjust the status of admitted and paroled aliens. 8
U.S.C. § 1255(a). The promulgation of 8 C.F.R. §§ 245.2 and 1245.2, delegating
exclusive jurisdiction over the applications for adjustment of status by arriving
aliens to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, is a permissible
construction of statutory authority. See Scheerer v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 513 F.3d 1244,
1251 (11th Cir. 2008). Moreover, the amended regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 245.2
and 1245.2 allow arriving aliens to apply for adjustment of status before the
USCIS. They do not eliminate “statutory eligibility for such relief.” Bona v.
Gonzalez, 425 F.3d 663, 670 (9th Cir. 2005).
Aguilar contends that the Board of Immigration Appeals violated his due
process rights when it denied his request to remand his case to the Immigration
Judge, where he could request procedural relief from removal orders while he
pursued his application for adjustment of status with the USCIS. This issue is
moot. The USCIS denied Aguilar’s application for waiver of inadmissibility and
ruled that he is ineligible to adjust status. This is not a live issue and we cannot
fashion a form of meaningful relief. Flint v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 823 (9th Cir.
2007).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
As USCIS has already denied Aguilar’s adjustment application, whether he
is eligible for relief pursuant to Kalilu v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2008),
is moot. See Flint, 488 F.3d at 823.
DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --