Salvador Murgo Pulido v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 1 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SALVADOR MURGO-PULIDO, No. 15-72561
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-179-165
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ,***
District Judge.
Salvador Murgo-Pulido, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal
*
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).
***
The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding him removable under 8 U.S.C. §
1182(a)(6)(E)(i) for inability to demonstrate good moral character. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We DENY the petition.
The BIA did not err in affirming the IJ’s determination that Murgo-Pulido
was statutorily barred from establishing “good moral character.” To be eligible for
cancellation of removal, an alien must prove, among other things, that he has been
“a person of good moral character” during the ten years preceding his application
for relief. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(c)(4)(A)(i), 1229b(b)(1).
The IJ pretermitted the application after Murgo-Pulido’s testimony revealed
he could not be regarded as a person of good moral character because he
knowingly assisted two of his brothers in seeking unlawful entry into the United
States in violation of the law. See Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 592-93
(9th Cir. 2005) (requiring an affirmative act of assistance in order to establish alien
smuggling). At least one of the occasions occurred during the ten years preceding
his application for relief.
Nor did Murgo-Pulido demonstrate that his testimony at the removal hearing
was inaccurate or obtained by coercion. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310
(9th Cir. 1995) (the sole test for admission of evidence is whether the evidence is
probative; unrefuted statements freely made by alien admissible as evidence unless
admission would be fundamentally unfair; information on an authenticated
2 15-72561
immigration form is presumed to be reliable in the absence of evidence to the
contrary presented by the alien).
Murgo-Pulido’s contention that the BIA erred in failing to address his “state
of mind” argument regarding what he knew about how his brothers would use the
money he provided is without merit. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538
(9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary
to the results they reach).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-72561