Javier Vazquez v. Matthew Whitaker

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 30 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAVIER ARANDA VAZQUEZ, No. 16-73523
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-749-735
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 27, 2018**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Javier Aranda Vazquez, 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 cancellation of removal. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
agency’s factual findings. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010).
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s good moral character
determination, where Aranda Vazquez provided false testimony for the purpose of
obtaining an immigration benefit, and did not voluntarily and timely recant the
false testimony. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(6) (anyone who has given false testimony
for the purpose of obtaining immigration benefits cannot show good moral
character), 1229b(b)(1)(B) (requiring good moral character for cancellation of
removal); Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Whether
[petitioner] eventually received benefits because of the false testimony is
irrelevant; the statute only refers to statements made ‘for the purpose of obtaining’
any immigration benefits, not that it resulted in such benefits.” (internal citation
omitted)); Valadez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1310 (9th Cir. 2010)
(recantation is neither voluntary nor timely if not made until disclosure of the
falsity of the statements appears imminent).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 16-73523