Alvarado v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 18, 2025
• Docket: 23-1250
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 18 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERICK ALONZO ALVARADO, No. 23-1250 Agency No. Petitioner, A070-774-200 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 13, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: WALLACE, GRABER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Erick Alonzo Alvarado is a native and citizen of Guatemala.

After a hearing, an immigration judge (“IJ”) denied Petitioner’s application for

nonpermanent resident cancellation of removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), and

cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Relief Act (“NACARA”), Pub. L. No. 105–100, §§ 201–04, 111 Stat. 2160 (Nov.

1997), amended by Pub. L. No. 105-139, 111 Stat. 2644 (Dec. 1997). The IJ

made two important factual findings: first, that Petitioner “was not a credible

witness” and, second, that Petitioner “gave false testimony and fabricated his

claim that he entered the United States in 1990.” The Board of Immigration

Appeals (“BIA”) concluded that those findings were not clearly erroneous and

agreed that Petitioner could not establish good moral character. The BIA

dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. Petitioner timely seeks our review. We dismiss the

petition.

1. We lack jurisdiction to review factual findings that underlie denials of

discretionary relief. Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 220–21, 225 (2024);

Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 339–40 (2022); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)–

(ii) (limiting judicial review of discretionary relief). To be eligible for

nonpermanent resident cancellation of removal, Petitioner must show good moral

character. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(B). We cannot review the IJ’s finding that

Petitioner gave false testimony for an immigration benefit. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(f)(6) (prohibiting a finding of good moral character for someone who has

given false testimony for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit).

2. We also cannot review the IJ’s findings concerning Petitioner’s request

for NACARA cancellation of removal. The IJ found that Petitioner fabricated the

2 23-1250 dates of his arrival and his application for benefits under the settlement agreement

in American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh (“ABC”), 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D.

Cal. 1991). The IJ also found that Petitioner failed to carry his burden of proving

that he registered for ABC benefits in time. Registration for ABC benefits is a

requirement under NACARA. Pub. L. No. 105–100, § 203, 111 Stat. 2160

(1997). These findings also are unreviewable because we lack jurisdiction to

review factual findings underlying NACARA cancellation of removal. Monroy v.

Lynch, 821 F.3d 1175, 1177 (9th Cir. 2016).

PETITION DISMISSED.

3 23-1250