Ismael Jimenez-Vasquez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 10 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALFREDO RUELAS-RODRIGUEZ, No. 08-73633
a.k.a. Jose Rodriguez,
Agency No. A023-696-191
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Alfredo Ruelas-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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. Reviewing for substantial
*
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).
evidence, Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir. 2001), we grant the petition
for review and remand for further proceedings.
Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s determination that Ruelas-
Rodriguez is statutorily precluded from demonstrating good moral character under
8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6) where the agency did not find that Ruelas-Rodriguez made
false statements with the subjective intent of obtaining immigration benefits. See
Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 780 (1988) (“Section 1101(f)(6) applies to
only those misrepresentations made with the subjective intent of obtaining
immigration benefits,” and not to misrepresentations made for other reasons, such
as fear, embarrassment, or a desire for privacy); United States v. Hovsepian, 422
F.3d 883, 887-88 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (no subjective intent to deceive under
8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6) where inaccuracies resulted from poor memory, mistake, or
vague questioning). We therefore grant the petition for review and remand for
reconsideration of Ruelas-Rodriguez’s eligibility for cancellation of removal or
voluntary departure in the alternative.
In light of our disposition, we do not address Ruelas-Rodriguez’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
2 08-73633