Ricardo Ayala-Negrete v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 584 F. App'x 780 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              SEP 12 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    RICARDO AYALA-NEGRETE,                           Nos. 10-70837, 13-72305
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A074-813-367
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted September 9, 2014**
    San Francisco, California
    Before: WALLACE, SCHROEDER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    Petitioner Ricardo Ayala-Negrete appeals from a final order of removal
    issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and the BIA’s denial of his
    motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we affirm.
    *
    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).
    Ayala-Negrete admits that he falsely claimed United States citizenship in an
    attempt to gain entry at the border on August 13, 2001. He is therefore
    inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii). Ayala-Negrete argues that this
    ground of inadmissibility does not apply because he timely retracted his false claim
    to the first border patrol agent to whom the claim was made. However, a retraction
    made when disclosure of the falsity is imminent is untimely and does not purge the
    taint. Valadez-Munoz v. Holder, 
    623 F.3d 1304
    , 1309-10 (9th Cir. 2010). Ayala-
    Negrete’s retraction was not made until the agent ordered him to pull over for
    further questioning, a point at which disclosure of the falsity was imminent.
    Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the retraction was
    untimely. See Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 
    754 F.3d 733
    , 738 (9th Cir. 2014).
    Ayala-Negrete’s other contentions are unavailing. First, because an
    immigrant who falsely claims citizenship is not eligible for a waiver of removal
    based on hardship, Ayala-Negrete cannot obtain relief based on his claim that the
    immigration judge (IJ) erroneously evaluated his extreme hardship showing. 8
    U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii), 1182(i). Second, the BIA and IJ did not violate
    Ayala-Negrete’s due process rights by denying his motion to suppress the
    testimony of a border patrol officer who allegedly misstated the date of Ayala-
    Negrete’s illegal entry. See Ramirez-Alejandre v. Ashcroft, 
    319 F.3d 365
    , 370 (9th
    2                                      13-72305
    Cir. 2003) (en banc). Moreover, even if the admission of such evidence were
    constitutional error, it was not prejudicial, as Ayala-Negrete’s own testimony
    established his inadmissibility. See Lata v. INS, 
    204 F.3d 1241
    , 1246 (9th Cir.
    2000). Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ayala-Negrete’s
    frivolous motion to reopen as untimely given that it was filed nearly two years
    after the BIA issued its decision. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(c)(6)-(7).
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                   13-72305
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-70837

Citation Numbers: 584 F. App'x 780

Filed Date: 9/12/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023