Oscar Martinez Ramirez v. Merrick Garland

facts, we do not recount them here, except as necessary to provide context to our

ruling.

In 2007, the BIA held in In re Briones, 24 I. & N. Dec. 355 (BIA 2007), that

noncitizens who are inadmissible pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) are

ineligible for adjustment of status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). Martinez concedes

that he is inadmissible pursuant to § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), but argues that the BIA

erred by applying Briones retroactively to deny his application for adjustment of

status because he relied on our decision in Acosta v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 550 (9th

Cir. 2006), which held that noncitizens who are inadmissible pursuant to §

1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) are still eligible for adjustment of status.

The Government, citing our unpublished memorandum disposition in

Hernandez v. Sessions, 697 F. App’x 492 (9th Cir. 2017), argues that because

Martinez applied for adjustment of status after the BIA decided Briones, the BIA did

not apply Briones retroactively, and we therefore need not analyze retroactivity

pursuant to Montgomery Ward & Co. v. FTC, 691 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir. 1982). But

unpublished memorandum dispositions are not precedent, 9th Cir. R. 36-3(a),…