NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FERNANDO MARTINEZ-BEATA, No. 12-72086
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-752-702
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 23, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: PAEZ, MURGUIA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Fernando Martinez-Beata petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing Martinez’s appeal from the decision of an
Immigration Judge denying his application for adjustment of status and ordering him
removed. We deny the petition.
*
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. Martinez was removed in 2000 under an expedited 8 U.S.C. §
1225(b)(1) removal order and later reentered the country illegally. CAR 67-68, 98.
Illegal reentry after removal pursuant to an expedited §1225(b)(1) removal order
renders an alien inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(II) and, in turn,
ineligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C.§ 1255(i). See In re Torres-
Garcia, 23 I. & N. Dec. 866, 870-71 (B.I.A. 2006); Duran Gonzales v. Dep’t of
Homeland Sec., 508 F.3d 1227, 1242 (9th Cir. 2007).
2. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(C), the BIA lacked jurisdiction to review
the validity of the 2000 expedited removal order. We also lack statutory
jurisdiction to review the validity of that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A)(i),
(e); Avendano-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 813, 818-19 (9th Cir. 2004).
3. We do have jurisdiction, however, to consider Martinez’s petition for
review, which contends that the BIA erred in denying his application for adjustment
of status. For the reasons above, that petition is DENIED.
2