JUAN SANCHEZ-RAMIREZ V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-73040 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN CARLOS SANCHEZ-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-73040 Agency No. A087-054-679 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Juan Carlos Sanchez-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the * 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). agency’s findings of fact. Valadez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1308 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of adjustment of status, where Sanchez-Ramirez’s testimony established that he made a false claim of United States citizenship to the California Department of Motor Vehicles to procure a driver’s license and is therefore inadmissible. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii), 1255(i), 1229a(c)(2)(A); Valadez-Munoz, 623 F.3d at 130809 (use of United States birth certificate to erroneously obtain a benefit constitutes a false claim of United States citizenship); Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 168 (9th Cir. 2007) (“so long as there is a basis in the evidence for a challenged inference, we do not question whether a different inference was available or more likely.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-73040

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.