Elliot Nilsson Garcia-Castro v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELLIOT NILSSON GARCIA-CASTRO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73905
Agency No. A072-321-175
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2014**
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Elliot Nilsson Garcia-Castro, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his
motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Vargas-Hernandez v.
FILED
APR 11 2014
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 --

Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 2007). We dismiss in part and deny in part
the petition for review.
Garcia-Castro’s undisputed deportability for a controlled-substance violation
under former 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)(B)(i) precludes us from considering his
contention that the BIA abused its discretion by denying his motion to reopen. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167, 1169 (9th Cir.
2009) (per curiam); see also Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 998 n.5
(9th Cir. 2007) (“[W]ithdrawal of judicial review over final orders of deportation
also withdraws jurisdiction from motions . . . to reopen deportation proceedings for
those aliens deportable for having committed a crime enumerated in the statute.”
(citation omitted)).
We retain jurisdiction to review questions of law and constitutional claims.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). But in light of the BIA’s dispositive determination
that Garcia-Castro’s motion was untimely, the BIA did not need to address his
arguments and evidence regarding prosecutorial discretion. See Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a general rule courts and agencies
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to
the results they reach.” (citation omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
11-73905 2

-- 2 of 2 --