Daniel Ruiz-Guzman v. William Barr

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 5 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL RUIZ-GUZMAN, No. 17-72417
Petitioner, Agency No. A210-229-651
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 3, 2020**
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: GRABER, HURWITZ, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Daniel Ruiz-Guzman, a native and citizen of Mexico, timely
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") order
dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for cancellation of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for
decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1. The admission of Irma Garcia’s sworn statement was not error. Garcia’s
statement was "probative," and its admission was "fundamentally fair." Rojas-
Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 823 (9th Cir. 2003). Garcia testified that she
married Petitioner "as a favor so that he could get a Permanent Resident Card" and
that they planned to divorce after Petitioner obtained permanent residence. That
statement provided direct evidence that Garcia considered the marriage to be a
sham, and it was probative of Ruiz-Guzman’s fraudulent intent when entering the
marriage. Admitting the statement was fundamentally fair because it was made
under oath, Garcia was unavailable to testify, Petitioner had notice that the
government intended to offer the statement, and he had the chance to testify that,
whatever Garcia’s motivations, he sincerely entered the marriage or that her
statement was not truthful.
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Petitioner testified
falsely about his marriage to Garcia for the purpose of obtaining an immigration
benefit, and was therefore statutorily precluded from establishing good moral
character. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(6), 1229b(b)(1)(B). The record does not compel us
to conclude that Ruiz-Guzman testified truthfully. Petitioner’s evidence did not
rebut Garcia’s statement and no "objective evidence" showed that he "intended to
establish a life" with Garcia "at the time of their marriage." Nakamoto v. Ashcroft,
2
363 F.3d 874, 882 (9th Cir. 2004). Indeed, the available evidence tended to
corroborate Garcia’s statement.
PETITION DENIED.
3