FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 12 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELIAS BELTRAN RASCON, No. 14-70900
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-771-875
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 10, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TASHIMA, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Elias Beltran-Rascon petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeal’s (“BIA’s”) decision holding him ineligible to adjust his status to lawful
permanent resident and ordering him removed if he does not voluntarily depart 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).
United States. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). Our review is de
novo. See Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504, 512 n.6 (9th Cir. 2012) (en
banc). For the reasons stated below, we deny the petition for review.
A. Beltran-Rascon Is Inadmissible under § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) and Therefore
Ineligible for Adjustment of Status under § 245(a).
Under § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”),
any alien who “has been unlawfully present in the United States for an aggregate
period of more than 1 year . . . and who enters or attempts to reenter the United
States without being admitted is inadmissible.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I).
The purpose of the statute is “to single out recidivist immigration violators and
make it more difficult for them to be admitted to the United States after having
departed.” Carrillo de Palacios v. Holder, 708 F.3d 1066, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013)
(quoting In re Briones, 24 I. & N. Dec. 355, 358 (BIA 2007)).
In this case, Beltran-Rascon admits he entered the United States without
inspection around January 2002. He further admits he voluntarily departed for
Mexico in March 2008 before reentering the United States in April 2008, again
without inspection. Thus, it is undisputed he was unlawfully present in the United
States for an aggregate period of more than one year and that he subsequently
reentered the United States without being admitted. He is inadmissible under
2
§ 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I).
INA § 245(a) permits adjustment of status only if the alien, among other
things, is “eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United
States for permanent residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). Because Beltran-Rascon is
inadmissible under § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), he is ineligible for adjustment of status to
permanent lawful resident. See Garfias-Rodriguez, 702 F.3d at 514; see also
Carrillo de Palacios, 708 F.3d at 1072; Briones, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 358.
B. The BIA Correctly Applied Ninth Circuit Law, and Regardless, the Same
Result Would Obtain under Tenth Circuit Law.
Beltran-Rascon argues the law of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit should govern his application for adjustment of status. An
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) who hears removal proceedings “has exclusive
jurisdiction to adjudicate any application for adjustment of status . . . .” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1245.2(a)(1)(i). Appellate review of the IJ’s decision is proper in “the court of
appeals for the judicial circuit in which the immigration judge completed the
proceedings.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2).
Here, the underlying removal proceedings and Beltran-Rascon’s renewed
application for adjustment of status were heard in Tucson, Arizona. Appellate
review of those proceedings lay in the Ninth Circuit, and the IJ and BIA were
3
correct to apply Ninth Circuit law. See id. Regardless, applying Tenth Circuit law
would make no difference here. The Tenth Circuit, like our circuit, has held that
inadmissibility under § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) precludes adjustment of status to lawful
permanent resident. Padilla-Caldera v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1140, 1153 (10th Cir.
2011). Thus, irrespective of whether Ninth or Tenth Circuit law governs, Beltran-
Rascon is ineligible for adjustment of status.
The petition for review is DENIED.
4