Angelica Sanchez v. Holder

383 F. App'x 610
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJune 10, 2010
Docket08-70649
StatusUnpublished

This text of 383 F. App'x 610 (Angelica Sanchez v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Angelica Sanchez v. Holder, 383 F. App'x 610 (9th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Martha Angelica Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence a finding of *611 statutory ineligibility for cancellation of removal based on a lack of good moral character, Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir.2005), overruled on other grounds by Sanchez v. Holder, 560 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc), and for clear error whether or not a person has the subjective intent to deceive in order to obtain immigration benefits, United States v. Hovsepian, 422 F.3d 883, 885 (9th Cir.2005) (en bane). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Sanchez gave false testimony to obtain an immigration benefit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6) (applicant who has given false testimony to obtain an immigration benefit is ineligible for relief that requires a showing of good moral character). Sanchez testified to the IJ and the asylum officer that she had not been arrested or convicted, despite her 1991 arrest and conviction for falsely claiming United States citizenship and attempted illegal re-entry. See Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir.2001) (false testimony to asylum officer established lack of good moral character). The IJ’s account of the evidence was plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety. See Hovsepian, 422 F.3d at 885-86.

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Martin Noe Moran v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General
395 F.3d 1089 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Sanchez v. Holder
560 F.3d 1028 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Hovsepian
422 F.3d 883 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
383 F. App'x 610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/angelica-sanchez-v-holder-ca9-2010.