RIGOBERTO MENDOZA-PALACIOS V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-72952 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 04 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RIGOBERTO MENDOZA-PALACIOS, Petitioner, No. 13-72952 Agency No. A200-630-205 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 21, 2015** Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Rigoberto Mendoza-Palacios, 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 applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. * 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). We review for substantial evidence determinations regarding good moral character. Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that MendozaPalacios is statutorily barred from establishing the good moral character necessary to qualify for cancellation of removal, where he gave false testimony under oath in immigration court with the subjective intent to obtain an immigration benefit. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(6), 1229b(b)(1)(B); Ramos, 246 F.3d at 1266. We lack jurisdiction to consider Mendoza-Palacios’s unexhausted contention that he timely recanted his false testimony. Id. at 1266-67 (“Failure to raise an argument before the BIA deprives this court of jurisdiction.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 13-72952

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.