Cesar Mendez Zolano v. Jefferson Sessions , 682 F. App'x 611 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
MAR 16 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CESAR MENDEZ ZOLANO, AKA No. 15-73099
Ubaldo Cabrera-Diaz, AKA Cesar Mendez-
Zolano, Agency No. A095-140-268
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Cesar Mendez Zolano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
*
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).
immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal and voluntary
departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual
findings for substantial evidence, Ramos v. I.N.S., 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir.
2001), and review de novo questions of law, Kumar v. Holder, 728 F.3d 993, 998
(9th Cir. 2013). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mendez
Zolano is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal based on a lack of good
moral character where he provided false testimony under oath and did not recant
until he had been in proceedings for more than two years. See 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1101(f)(6) (barring a finding of good moral character for any person who has
given false testimony for the purpose of obtaining any immigration benefit);
1229b(b)(1)(B); Valadez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1310 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“recantation must be voluntary and without delay” (citation and quotation marks
omitted)).
The BIA did not err in rejecting Mendez Zolano’s contention that his false
testimony was caused by ineffective assistance of counsel, where Mendez Zolano
failed to comply with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the
alleged ineffective assistance of counsel was not plain on the face of the record.
The agency did not violate due process in pretermitting without a further
hearing Mendez Zolano’s applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary
2 15-73099
departure based on failure to show good moral character, where Mendez Zolano
was afforded the opportunity to brief his eligibility, and has not established that he
was prejudiced by the denial of further hearings in his case. See Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and prejudice to prevail
on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-73099