Antonio Salazar-Arzola v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Antonio Salazar-Arzola (“Salazar-Arzola”) petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision to pretermit his application for adjustment of status. Salazar-Arzola argues that the BIA erred in its determination that his status as an inadmissible alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(9)(C)(i)(I) precludes eligibility for adjustment of status. We deny the petition.
We review de novo the BIA’s determinations of questions of law. Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir.2010).
In re Briones, 24 I. & N. Dec. 355, 371 (BIA 2007), bars individuals who are inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(9)(C)(i)(I) from seeking adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (i). Salazar-Arzola concedes that this court’s decision in Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504, 514 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc), gives Briones deference under Chevron and Brand X and explicitly overrules conflicting precedent in Acosta v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 550, 556 (9th Cir.2006). Therefore, the BIA did not err in concluding that Briones , rather than Acosta , is the controlling authority.