EULALIO ROMERO-SANCHEZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-73338 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 23 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EULALIO ROMERO-SANCHEZ, AKA Eulalio Romero, AKA Jason SagunAlatorre, No. 14-73338 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 RomeroSanchez 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.