
    Amilcar AGUILAR-NAVARRETE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70764.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2011.
    
    Filed Dec. 6, 2011.
    Aura Marina Pineda Kamariotis, Esquire, Law Office of Marina Pineda-Ka-mariotis, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kiley L. Kane, Esquire, Trial, Brooke Maurer, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, FARRIS, Circuit Judge, and GETTLEMAN, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Robert W. Gettleman, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

We defer to an agency’s permissible interpretation of a statute. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984); Contract Mgmt., Inc. v. Rumsfeld, 434 F.3d 1145, 1147 (9th Cir.2006). Congress gave the Attorney General authority to adjust the status of admitted and paroled aliens. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). The promulgation of 8 C.F.R. §§ 245.2 and 1245.2, delegating exclusive jurisdiction over the applications for adjustment of status by arriving aliens to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, is a permissible construction of statutory authority. See Scheerer v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 513 F.3d 1244, 1251 (11th Cir.2008). Moreover, the amended regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 245.2 and 1245.2 allow arriving aliens to apply for adjustment of status before the USCIS. They do not eliminate “statutory eligibility for such relief.” Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663, 670 (9th Cir.2005).

Aguilar contends that the Board of Immigration Appeals violated his due process rights when it denied his request to remand his case to the Immigration Judge, where he could request procedural relief from removal orders while he pursued his application for adjustment of status with the USCIS. This issue is moot. The US-CIS denied Aguilar’s application for waiver of inadmissibility and ruled that he is ineligible to adjust status. This is not a live issue and we cannot fashion a form of meaningful relief. Flint v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 823 (9th Cir.2007).

As USCIS has already denied Aguilar’s adjustment application, whether he is eligible for relief pursuant to Kalilu v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir.2008), is moot. See Flint, 488 F.3d at 823.

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