Case ID: f-appx_708/html/0363-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Salazar RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-71740
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 22, 2017
    Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner
    Margaret Anne O’Donnell, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    
      Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, 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

Jose Salazar Rodriguez, 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 finding him removable. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Valadez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1308 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Salazar Rodriguez is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) because he made a false claim of United States citizenship to gain entry to the United States. See Valadez-Munoz, 623 F.3d at 1308-09 (record did not compel reversal of agency’s determination that petitioner made a false claim of citizenship where he presented border officials with a Texas birth certificate and a California driver license under a different identity in his attempt to enter the United States). Thus, we deny the petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.