Gloria Monreal De Leon v. William Barr ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 5 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GLORIA ERIKA MONREAL DE LEON, No. 18-71853
AKA Gloria Erika Deleon, AKA Gloria
Erika Monreal, Agency No. A074-792-890
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted October 2, 2019
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and CHOE-GROVES,** Judge.
Gloria Monreal De Leon (“Monreal”) petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal and denying her
motion to remand. The BIA issued a Burbano affirmance of the immigration
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge for the United States
Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
judge’s (“IJ”) ruling ordering that Monreal be removed to Mexico and adopted the
IJ’s adverse credibility finding. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
“Where, as here, the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ’s order pursuant to Matter of
Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994), and expresses no disagreement
with the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s order as if it were the BIA’s.” Chuen Piu
Kwong v. Holder, 671 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for
review.
1. We first reject Monreal’s contention that the IJ erred by considering her
fraud-related criminal history in making the adverse credibility finding. There is
record evidence, including Monreal’s own testimony, that Monreal suffered a
forgery conviction. The agency did not err in concluding that such a conviction
was a sufficient basis to discredit her testimony.1 Unuakhaulu v. Gonzales, 416
F.3d 931, 938 (9th Cir. 2005). Once Monreal’s testimony was discredited, there
was no evidence to support her claim regarding the time, place, and manner of her
entry. In the absence of credible testimony, Monreal’s claim fails.
2. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to remand for
consideration of Monreal’s application for cancellation of removal. Monreal failed
to provide any evidence of good moral character and thus did not make out a prima
1
We do not address whether Monreal’s shoplifting convictions, standing alone,
would support the adverse credibility finding.
2
facie case of eligibility for cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3