Humberto Ramirez-Martinez v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUMBERTO RAMIREZ-MARTINEZ, No. 16-73716
AKA Luis Ramirez-Martinez,
Agency No. A201-240-432
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Humberto Ramirez-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
*
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).
agency’s factual findings, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies in Ramirez-Martinez’s testimony. See Shrestha v. Holder,
590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (adverse credibility determination supported
under the totality of circumstances).
We reject Ramirez-Martinez’s contention that the agency erred in not
considering his wife’s pregnancy and the subsequent birth of his fourth child in its
hardship determination, where he failed to sufficiently raise those issues before the
agency. See Segura v. Holder, 605 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2010) (broad
statements in the notice of appeal and brief were insufficient to put the BIA on
notice of petitioner’s claim).
We also reject Ramirez-Martinez’s contention that the BIA was required to
address the issue of continuous physical presence, where the agency’s hardship
determination was independently dispositive. See Camacho-Cruz v. Holder, 621
F.3d 941, 942 (9th Cir. 2010) (failure to satisfy any one of the statutory
requirements is fatal to a cancellation application). For the same reason, we need
not reach his contentions regarding evidence of physical presence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 16-73716