Case ID: f-appx_578/html/0635-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Santiago GOMEZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72234.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 5, 2014.
    
    Filed June 10, 2014.
    Nora Elizabeth Milner, Senior Trial, Milner & Markee, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOULD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and ENGLAND, Chief District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Santiago Gomez-Hernandez petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing Petitioner’s appeal of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal.

1. The BIA properly determined that Petitioner was removable based on counsel’s concession at the merits hearing before the IJ. That concession was a judicial admission binding on Petitioner. See Hakopiani v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 843, 846 (9th Cir.2008).

2. The BIA also properly rejected Petitioner’s argument that the Government initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner based on information pertaining to the denial of his legalization application. The record is clear, and Petitioner admitted, that Petitioner is a citizen or national of Mexico, that he applied to adjust his status, and that his application was denied. The Government only served Petitioner with a Notice to Appear after that denial issued, and there is no indication in the record that the removability charges against Petitioner were based on his prior legalization proceedings.

3. The record supports the IJ’s conclusion that Petitioner testified untruthfully about the occasions on which he had made false claims to United States citizenship. He was thus ineligible for relief from removal because he could not establish the requisite good moral character. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b), 1229c(b). Nothing in the record supports Petitioner’s theory that the IJ was biased against Petitioner or acted in any way other than as a neutral adjudicator.

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