NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VICENTE SOLIS-PINON, AKA Vicente No. 16-71146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 16-71146 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Vicente Solis-Pinon v. William Barr 9 June 2020 Agency Unpublished 0182c78423a6ba6b0b4cd2bd7c250b4469488c69
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals