Jose Alberto Gutierrez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ALBERTO GUTIERREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73162
Agency No. A090-519-511
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jose Alberto Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de
novo questions of law, and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
FILED
JUN 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gutierrez’s motion to
reopen, where the BIA determined that Gutierrez was not entitled to the requested
relief as a matter of discretion. See id. at 986 (the BIA may deny a motion to
reopen upon a determination that the alien would not be entitled to the
discretionary grant of relief sought).
Contrary to Gutierrez’s contention, the BIA applied the correct legal
standard in making its discretionary determination. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2; see also
8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (relief may be granted in the Attorney General’s discretion).
Gutierrez’s contentions that the BIA relied on inapplicable precedent, did
not consider relevant factors, and failed to address an argument regarding the
distinction between waivers under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h)(1)(A) and 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(h)(1)(B) lack merit.
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Gutierrez’s remaining
contentions regarding whether he showed eligibility for relief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
14-73162 2

-- 2 of 2 --