22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T436,MEMORANDUM Samuel Guerrero Verdeja, 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 removal order and denying his motion for remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand, Garcia-Quintero v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Guerrero Verdeja’s motion to remand where Guerrero Verdeja was not eligible for adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (a)(2); Corona-Mendez v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir.2010) (where an alien is inadmissible on more than one ground he is not “otherwise admissible” for purposes of waiver eligibility). In light of our disposition, we do not address Guerrero Verdeja’s remaining contentions. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T468,

MEMORANDUM

Samuel Guerrero Verdeja, 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 removal order and denying his motion for remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand, Garcia-Quintero v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Guerrero Verdeja’s motion to remand where Guerrero Verdeja was not eligible for adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (a)(2); Corona-Mendez v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir.2010) (where an alien is inadmissible on more than one ground he is not “otherwise admissible” for purposes of waiver eligibility).

In light of our disposition, we do not address Guerrero Verdeja’s remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.