eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2020-06

Vicente Solis-Pinon v. William Barr ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 9 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICENTE SOLIS-PINON, AKA Vicente                No.    16-71146
Solis,
Agency No. A205-714-880
Petitioner,
v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 2, 2020**
Before:      LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Vicente Solis-Pinon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand
and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision. Our
jurisdiction is governed by
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review for abuse of discretion the
*
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).
BIA’s denial of a motion to remand. Movsisian v. Ashcroft,
    395 F.3d 1095
    , 1098
(9th Cir. 2005). We review de novo due process claims in immigration
proceedings. Jiang v. Holder,
    754 F.3d 733
    , 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Solis-Pinon’s motion to
remand to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture because he failed to demonstrate prima facie
eligibility for relief. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder,
    706 F.3d 1072
    , 1080 (9th Cir.
2013) (“The BIA is entitled to deny a motion to reopen where the applicant fails to
demonstrate prima facie eligibility for the underlying relief.”); see also Romero-
Ruiz v. Mukasey,
    538 F.3d 1057
    , 1063 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The formal requirements
for a motion to reopen and a motion to remand are the same.”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Solis-Pinon’s contention that he will be
harmed on account of his political opinion. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
    358 F.3d 674
    ,
677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to
the agency). To the extent the social groups Solis-Pinon raises in his opening brief
differ from what he raised to the agency, we lack jurisdiction to consider them.
    Id.
    Solis-Pinon’s contentions that the IJ and BIA violated his due process rights
fail. See Lata v. INS,
    204 F.3d 1241
    , 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to
prevail on a due process claim).
2
We reject Solis-Pinon’s contention that his appeal required review by a
three-member panel of the BIA. See
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.1
    (e)(6).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3