Esaun Torres v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 584 F. App'x 554 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ESAUN TORRES, No. 11-72222
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-967-454
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 13, 2014**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Esaun Torres, 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 cancellation of removal. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
*
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).
determinations regarding good moral character. Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales,
487 F.3d 742, 747 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Torres is
statutorily barred from establishing the good moral character necessary to qualify
for cancellation of removal because he knowingly gave false testimony under oath
at his asylum interview in 2007 with the subjective intent to obtain an immigration
benefit. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(6), 1229b(b)(1)(B); Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d
1264, 1266 (9th Cir. 2001) (concluding that a petitioner who had made false
statements under oath during an asylum interview had given false testimony for the
purpose of obtaining immigration benefits and could therefore not establish good
moral character, even though she had later withdrawn her asylum application and
had admitted to the immigration judge that she had lied during the interview).
We lack jurisdiction to review Torres’s remaining, unexhausted contentions.
See Ramos, 246 F.3d at 1267 (“Failure to raise an argument before the BIA
deprives this court of jurisdiction.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 11-72222