Ochoa v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Ochoa v. Holder

315 F. App'x 632

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 2009

DocketNo. 04-70961

StatusPublished

This text of 315 F. App'x 632 (Ochoa 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

Ochoa v. Holder, 315 F. App'x 632 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Jose Refugio Andrade Ochoa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for [633]*633review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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. We review factual determinations for substantial evidence, Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Andrade Ochoa lacks good moral character under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6) because he denied that he had more than one conviction before an asylum officer. See Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid[633]*633ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Jose Refugio Andrade Ochoa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for [633]*633review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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. We review factual determinations for substantial evidence, Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Andrade Ochoa lacks good moral character under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6) because he denied that he had more than one conviction before an asylum officer. See Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid[633]*633ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

315 F. App'x 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ochoa-v-holder-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack