SERGIO SALGADO-SALINAS, AKA Andres Guttierez-Peralta v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SERGIO SALGADO-SALINAS, AKA
Andres Guttierez-Peralta,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71243
Agency No. A088-767-273
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 21, 2015**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Sergio Salgado-Salinas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s order denying his application for cancellation of removal, and
denying his motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
SEP 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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 of 3 --

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Movsisian v.
Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1097-98 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Salgado-Salinas’ motion to
remand, where Salgado-Salinas failed to establish that the evidence he submitted
was unavailable at the time of his removal hearing. See Rodriguez v. INS, 841 F.2d
865, 867 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Since a motion to remand is so similar to a motion to
reopen, the motion to remand should be drafted in conformity with the regulations
pertinent to motions to reopen[.]” (internal citation omitted)); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)
(“A motion to reopen proceedings shall not be granted unless it appears to the
Board that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available and
could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing[.]”).
It follows that the BIA did not violate due process in denying Salgado-
Salinas’ motion to remand. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice).
In his opening brief, Salgado-Salinas fails to raise, and therefore has waived,
any challenge to the BIA’s grounds for dismissal of his appeal. See Lopez-Vasquez
v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (a petitioner waives a
13-71243 2

-- 2 of 3 --

contention by failing to raise it in the opening brief).
The government’s August 12, 2015, motion to lift the abeyance is denied as
moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-71243 3

-- 3 of 3 --