MIGUEL PINEDA-FITZ V. MATTHEW WHITAKER, No. 16-72732 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 19 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MIGUEL PINEDA-FITZ, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-72732 Agency No. A200-832-206 v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 17, 2018** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Miguel Pineda-Fitz, 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 cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s * 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). factual findings. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s good moral character determination, where Pineda-Fitz provided false testimony for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(6) (anyone who has given false testimony for the purpose of obtaining immigration benefits cannot show good moral character), 1229b(b)(1)(B) (requiring good moral character for cancellation of removal); Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir. 2001) (for a witness’s false testimony to preclude a finding of good moral character, the witness must have had a subjective intent to deceive for the purpose of obtaining immigration benefits). To the extent Pineda-Fitz contends he voluntarily and timely recanted the false testimony, he did not exhaust this contention before the agency. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010). We also lack jurisdiction to consider Pineda-Fitz’s unexhausted contentions that the agency impermissibly admitted and relied on hearsay evidence in its false testimony finding, and thereby violated his right to a fundamentally fair hearing, see id., and because he did not raise these issues in his appeal brief, the BIA was not required to discuss them, see Zhang v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 713, 721 (9th Cir. 2004). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 16-72732
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.
