SALMALANCA PADILLA AKA v. SESSIONS III (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

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 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.