MARTIN SALMALANCA-PADILLA, AKA Martin Salamanca-Padilla v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN SALMALANCA-PADILLA,
AKA Martin Salamanca-Padilla,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73453
Agency No. A073-130-374
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.
Martin Salamanca-Padilla, 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
* 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 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-73453
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo
questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Salamanca-Padilla’s motion
to reopen so that he could pursue an I-601A provisional unlawful presence waiver,
where Salamanca-Padilla failed to establish prima facie eligibility for that waiver.
See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1080 (9th Cir. 2013); 8 C.F.R.
§ 212.7(e)(3), (4) (2013).
Salamanca-Padilla’s contention that the BIA failed to recognize that it had
authority to reopen as a matter of discretion is belied by the BIA’s statement that it
declined to exercise its discretion to reopen sua sponte under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).
Cf. Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 653 (9th Cir. 2014) (the BIA’s denial of a
motion to reopen on jurisdictional grounds was legal error, and thus an abuse of
discretion, because the BIA had authority to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a)).
Salamanca-Padilla’s motion to stay removal (Docket Entry No. 27) is denied
as moot. The temporary stay of removal will expire upon issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --