Case ID: f-appx_420/html/0701-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alfredo RUELAS-RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a. Jose Rodriguez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73633.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 10, 2011.
    
      Glen Alan Prior, Esquire, Pacific Law Inc., PS, Fife, WA, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jesse Matthew Bless, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, ORP-Distriet Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alfredo Ruelas-Rodriguez, 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 decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir.2001), we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s determination that Ruelas-Rodriguez is statutorily precluded from demonstrating good moral character under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6) where the agency did not find that Ruelas-Rodriguez made false statements with the subjective intent of obtaining immigration benefits. See Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 780, 108 S.Ct. 1537, 99 L.Ed.2d 839 (1988) (“Section 1101(f)(6) applies to only those misrepresentations made with the subjective intent of obtaining immigration benefits,” and not to misrepresentations made for other reasons, such as fear, embarrassment, or a desire for privacy); United States v. Hovsepian, 422 F.3d 883, 887-88 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (no subjective intent to deceive under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6) where inaccuracies resulted from poor memory, mistake, or vague questioning). We therefore grant the petition for review and remand for reconsideration of Ruelas-Rodriguez’s eligibility for cancellation of removal or voluntary departure in the alternative.

In light of our disposition, we do not address Ruelas-Rodriguez’s remaining contentions.

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