Case ID: f-appx_543/html/0631-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Serfain Alejandro Mendoza LARA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-73707.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 22, 2013.
    Judith Seeds Miller, Law Office of David Neumeister, Bakersfield, CA, for Petitioner.
    Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, Karen L. Melnik, Trial, Oil, U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Serfain Alejandro Mendoza Lara, 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 removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact, Blanco v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 714, 718 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Mendoza Lara was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) because he made a false claim to being a United States citizen in April 2005. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Blanco, 518 F.3d at 720-21.

In light of this disposition, we need not reach Mendoza Lara’s contentions concerning the January 2005 claim to citizenship nor his contention regarding res judi-cata.

Contrary to Mendoza Lara’s contention, it was not necessary for the BIA to address his challenge to the admissibility of the 1-213 and G-166 where the BIA relied on the “Record of Sworn Statement” dated April 4, 2005, to determine Mendoza Lara was inadmissible.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.