Guillermo Garcia-Garcia v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 26 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUILLERMO GARCIA-GARCIA, No. 13-70572
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-787-517
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Guillermo Garcia-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for
cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual determinations.
Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 742, 747 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny in
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Garcia-Garcia
failed to demonstrate the good moral character necessary to qualify for cancellation
of removal because, under our binding precedent, his admission to having paid
money to smuggle his wife into the United States in 2008 prevents him from
demonstrating good moral character. See Sanchez v. Holder, 560 F.3d 1028, 1032
(9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (“[A]lien smugglers are one of the classes of persons that
cannot be found to have good moral character for the purposes of cancellation of
removal . . . .”). Garcia-Garcia has identified no basis for revisiting this precedent
at this time. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding
that a three-judge panel “may reexamine normally controlling circuit precedent”
only “where the reasoning or theory of our prior circuit authority is clearly
irreconcilable with the reasoning or theory of intervening higher authority”).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of voluntary departure. See
Gomez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 882, 884 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 13-70572