Ismael Rivas Cotas v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 15, 2023
• Docket: 20-70219
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 15 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ISMAEL RIVAS COTAS, AKA Ismael No. 20-70219 Rivas Cota, Agency No. A205-272-235 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 13, 2023** San Francisco, California

Before: MILLER, SANCHEZ, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.

Ismael Rivas Cotas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision, affirming the Immigration

Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under

* 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). 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

Petitioner contends the BIA erred in denying sua sponte reconsideration

based on our decision in Lorenzo v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2018),

withdrawn on denial of reh’g sub nom. Lorenzo v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 930 (9th Cir.

2019), and superseded sub nom. Lorenzo v. Whitaker, 752 F. App’x 482 (9th Cir.

2019). Because Lorenzo v. Sessions was withdrawn and superseded by a non-

precedential memorandum disposition, the BIA did not err in concluding that

petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is not supported by binding circuit

precedent. See Grimm v. City of Portland, 971 F.3d 1060, 1067 (9th Cir. 2020).

Moreover, United States v. Rodriguez-Gamboa, 972 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir.

2020), forecloses petitioner’s claim. Rodriguez-Gamboa held “as a matter of law,

that California’s definition of methamphetamine is a categorical match to the

definition under the federal [Controlled Substances Act].” Id. at 1154 n.5. The BIA

did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

See Ayala v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 1012, 1020 (9th Cir. 2017).

PETITION DENIED.