Bhupinder Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BHUPINDER SINGH, No. 10-71426
Petitioner, Agency No. A071-784-034
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 1, 2013 **
Before: GRABER, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Bhupinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision finding him removable and denying his application
*
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).
for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the government met
its burden to show that Petitioner is removable as an alien present in the United
States in violation of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) (deportable aliens);
Gameros-Hernandez v. INS, 883 F.2d 839, 841 (9th Cir. 1989) (standard of
review).
The BIA concluded as a matter of discretion that Petitioner failed to
demonstrate good moral character during the requisite period, on account of having
filed a fraudulent visa application, having solicited and submitted a false
employment document to support that application, and having lied during an
interview. We lack jurisdiction to review that determination. See Lopez-
Castellanos v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir. 2006).
We also lack jurisdiction over the BIA’s denial of voluntary departure for
lack of good moral character. See 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d
1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2005), overruled on other grounds by Sanchez v. Holder, 560
F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.
2 10-71426