Marcelino Medina-Mungia v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCELINO MEDINA-MUNGIA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-401
Agency No.
A205-991-844
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 18, 2023 **
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Marcelino Medina-Mungia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion
to remand removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Movsisian
* 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
AUG 8 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-401
v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to remand
where Medina-Mungia failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See
Rodriguez v. INS, 841 F.2d 865, 867 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The formal requirements
of the motion to reopen and those of the motion to remand are for all practical
purposes the same.”); Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir.
2016) (BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie
eligibility for the underlying relief sought).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --