Ismael Jimenez-Vasquez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

420 F. App'x 701
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 10, 2011
Docket09-73633
StatusUnpublished

This text of 420 F. App'x 701 (Ismael Jimenez-Vasquez v. Eric Holder, Jr.) 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
Ismael Jimenez-Vasquez v. Eric Holder, Jr., 420 F. App'x 701 (9th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Alfredo Ruelas-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir.2001), we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s determination that Ruelas-Rodriguez is statutorily precluded from demonstrating good moral character under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6) where the agency did not find that Ruelas-Rodriguez made false statements with the subjective intent of obtaining immigration benefits. See Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 780, 108 S.Ct. 1537, 99 L.Ed.2d 839 (1988) (“Section 1101(f)(6) applies to only those misrepresentations made with the subjective intent of obtaining immigration benefits,” and not to misrepresentations made for other reasons, such as fear, embarrassment, or a desire for privacy); United States v. Hovsepian, 422 F.3d 883, 887-88 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (no subjective intent to deceive under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6) where inaccuracies resulted from poor memory, mistake, or vague questioning). We therefore grant the petition for review and remand for reconsideration of Ruelas-Rodriguez’s eligibility for cancellation of removal or voluntary departure in the alternative.

In light of our disposition, we do not address Ruelas-Rodriguez’s remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

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

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

Related

Kungys v. United States
485 U.S. 759 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. Hovsepian
422 F.3d 883 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
420 F. App'x 701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ismael-jimenez-vasquez-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2011.