Salvador Benitez-Pineda v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SALVADOR BENITEZ-PINEDA, No. 11-70208
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-734-262
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 13, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Salvador Benitez-Pineda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
*
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).
the agency’s factual findings, Aguilar Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1204, 1208
(9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Benitez-
Pineda’s testimony concerning his trip to Canada was not credible because it was
implausible and contradicted by the totality of the circumstances. See Malkandi v.
Holder, 576 F.3d 906, 917 (9th Cir. 2009) (an adverse credibility determination
should be based on the totality of the circumstances, including the inherent
plausibility of the petitioner’s testimony).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Benitez-
Pineda was statutorily barred from establishing good moral character in order to
qualify for cancellation of removal because he engaged in affirmative acts in
support of a smuggling attempt. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(3), 1229b(b)(1)(B);
Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 742, 747-49 (9th Cir. 2007) (alien
smuggling finding was supported by substantial evidence where the record
reflected that the petitioner provided “an affirmative act of help, assistance, or
encouragement”).
In light of our disposition, we need not address Benitez-Pineda’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-70208