Valdemar Salas-Buenrostro v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VALDEMAR SALAS-BUENROSTRO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73762
Agency No. A090-343-309
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Valdemar Salas-Buenrostro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo
* 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).
FILED
MAR 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-73762
questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005).
We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not err or abuse its discretion in denying Salas-Buenrostro’s
motion to reopen his 1996 deportation proceedings. Because he did not
demonstrate his 2005 removal order was invalid, the BIA did not err in declining to
address, and we need not address, Salas-Buenrostro’s contentions regarding
whether his 1996 deportation order remained valid. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371
F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (court and agency not required to make findings on
issues unnecessary to the results they reach); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983,
991 (9th Cir. 2010) (remand to agency unnecessary where to do so would be
futile).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --