Jose Aguilar-Cortes v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE AGUILAR-CORTES,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70024
Agency No. A073-940-045
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Aguilar-Cortes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
* 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).
FILED
NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-70024
determinations regarding inadmissibility. Abufayad v. Holder, 632 F.3d 623, 631
(9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
Aguilar-Cortes raises no contentions regarding the agency’s determination
that the admissions and concessions in his written pleadings make him
inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(II) and therefore ineligible for
adjustment of status, and thus he waives challenge to this dispositive
determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(2) (to be eligible for adjustment of status, an
alien must be admissible); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(II) (any alien who has been
ordered removed under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) and reenters the United States
without being admitted is inadmissible); Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072,
1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in an opening
brief are waived).
In light of this disposition, we need not address Aguilar-Cortes’ remaining
contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (the
court is not required to make findings on issues unnecessary to the result reached).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --