
    Jose Alberto GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73162
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 20, 2016
    Jaime Jasso, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Jaime Jasso, Westlake Village, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Victor Matthew Lawrence, I, Esquire, Assistant Director, DOJ—U.S. Department' of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Sarah Abigail Byrd, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Alberto Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gutierrez’s motion to reopen, where the BIA determined that Gutierrez was not entitled to the requested relief as a matter of discretion. See id. at 986 (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen upon a determination that the alien would not be entitled to the discretionary grant of relief sought).

Contrary to Gutierrez’s contention, the BIA applied the correct legal standard in making its discretionary determination. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (relief may be granted in the Attorney General’s discretion).

Gutierrez’s contentions that the BIA relied on inapplicable precedent, did not consider relevant factors, and failed to address an argument regarding the distinction between waivers under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h)(1)(A) and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h)(1)(B) lack merit.

In light of our disposition, we need not reach Gutierrez’s remaining contentions regarding whether he showed eligibility for relief.

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