Leonilio Bustamante Salvador 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).
NHY/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEONILIO BUSTAMANTE
SALVADOR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73437
Agency No. A037-370-243
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Leonilio Bustamante Salvador, a native and citizen of the Philippines,
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.
FILED
MAR 31 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

NHY/Research 07-73437 2
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen,
Ramirez-Alejandre v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 858, 874 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc), and de
novo due process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th
Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Salvador’s motion to reopen
for adjustment of status based on marriage to a United States citizen during
removal proceedings where the supporting evidence did not meet the regulatory
requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(1)(iii)(B). See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989,
994 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner’s due process claim therefore fails. See Lata v.
INS, 204, F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for due process
violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --