FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 23 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EULALIO ROMERO-SANCHEZ, AKA No. 14-73338
Eulalio Romero, AKA Jason Sagun-
Alatorre, Agency No. A205-711-508
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Eulalio Romero-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’(“BIA”) denial of his motion to
reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
*
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).
discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d
785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Romero-Sanchez’s motion
to reconsider the denial of his cancellation of removal application, where Romero-
Sanchez failed to submit evidence establishing that he was no longer convicted of a
controlled substance offense for immigration purposes. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1)(C); Murillo-Espinoza v. INS, 261 F.3d 771, 774 (9th Cir. 2001)
(rehabilitative vacaturs do not remove convictions from consideration for
immigration purposes).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Romero-Sanchez’s remaining
contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a
general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.” (citation and quotation
marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 14-73338