FREDY RECINOS; LOURDES MALDONADO V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-70459 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED DEC 26 2013 NOT FOR PUBLICATION MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FREDY ANTONIO ALAS RECINOS; LOURDES E. REYES MALDONADO, No. 10-70459 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A094-379-163 A095-024-724 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 4, 2013** San Francisco, California Before: TROTT, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Fredy Antonio Alas Recino and Lourdes E. Reyes Maldonado, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge s ( IJ ) decision * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). denying Recinos s application for special rule cancellation of removal under Section 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. Maldonado, Recinos s spouse, is a derivative beneficiary of his application. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1240.61(a)(4), 1240.65(b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we dismiss the petition for review. The IJ determined that Recinos could not establish good moral character, a statutory predicate for special rule cancellation, because he had testified falsely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(b)(3); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6). The IJ alternatively declined to grant relief on discretionary grounds. The BIA affirmed on both the statutory and discretionary grounds. Because we lack jurisdiction to consider the alternative discretionary denial, and that denial disposes of petitioners claims, we must dismiss the petition for review relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); LopezCastellanos v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir. 2006). PETITION DISMISSED. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.