Roberto Garcia Solis v. Loretta E. Lynch , 623 F. App'x 445 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERTO GARCIA SOLIS, No. 13-73266
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-448-783
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Roberto Garcia Solis, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for cancellation of
removal and voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 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.
Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 742, 747 (9th Cir. 2007). We review de
novo constitutional claims and questions of law. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d
532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
Garcia Solis does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that
he failed to establish the requisite hardship for cancellation of removal, see Tijani
v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010), thus we need not reach his other
contentions regarding cancellation of removal, see Simeonov, 371 F.3d at 538 (“As
a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.” (citation and quotation
marks omitted)).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Garcia Solis
provided false testimony for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit and is
therefore statutorily precluded from demonstrating good moral character under 8
U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6) as required for voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1)(B). Contrary to Garcia Solis’s contention, the agency properly
relied on the 2007 police report to determine that Garcia Solis and his wife
provided false testimony. Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The
2 13-73266
sole test for admission of evidence is whether the evidence is probative and its
admission is fundamentally fair.”).
Garcia Solis’s due process claims related to the agency’s consideration of
the 2007 police report fail, where he has not established prejudice regarding cross-
examination of the preparer, and his contention that he did not have an opportunity
to review or challenge the report is not supported by the record. See Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an
alien must show error and prejudice).
Garcia Solis’s contention that the agency made an adverse credibility
determination is not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-73266