NOT FOR PUB LIC A TION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
JOSE JULIAN GOM EZ-B O RB OA, ) No. 11-70191 ) Pe titione r, ) Age n c y No. A073-947-619 ) v. ) M EM OR A NDUM * ) ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y ) Ge ne ra l, ) ) R e sponde nt. ) )

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d July

7, 2014 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, N.R
. SM ITH, a nd C HR ISTEN, C i rc u it Judge s. Jose Julia n Gom e z -B orboa , a nat ive and c i tiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for
re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ upholding of the Im m i gration Judge ’ s de nia l of his Applic a tion for C anc e lla tion of R e m o va l. Se e 8 U.S.C
.



# FIL ED
JUL 17 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he pa ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).§ 1229b(b)(1). W e de ny the pe tition in pa

rt, gra nt it in pa rt, a n d re m a n d
. (1) In ge ne ra l , we do not ha ve jurisdic t ion to re vie wde c isions “re ga rding the g ranting of re lie f unde r se c tion . . . 1229b.” 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(B )(i). Howe ve r, the re is a

n e xc e ption for “ c onstitutiona l c la im s or que stions of la w.” Id. § 1252(a )(2)(D); se e a l so M artine z -R osa s v. Gonz a le s, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th C i r. 2005). (2) Gom e za sse rts tha

t whe n the B IA de t e rm ine d tha t he ha d not shown good m ora l c ha

ra c te r, 1 it e nga ge d in im

pe rm issible fa c t-finding. 2 He points out that the B IA re fe rre d to Gom e z ’ s m ultiplefa l se c la i m s of Unite d State s
c itiz e nship. 3 He a lso a sse rts tha t the B IA c om

m itte d le ga l e rror whe n it de te rm ine d that he la c ke d good m ora l c ha ra c te r be c a

use it tre a t e d his fa lse c la im s of
c itiz e nship a s a

pe r se ba r to a de te rm ination tha

t he ha d good m o ra l c ha

ra c te r. Se e Gua da rra m a , 24 I& N De c . at 626–27; se e a lso Torre s -Guz m an v. INS, 804 F.2d 531, 534 (9th C ir. 1986); c f. B l anc o v. M uka se y , 518 F.3d 714, 720–21 (9th C ir.

1 Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(b)(1)(B ).
2 That is a le ga l que s tion ove r whic h we hav e jurisdic tion. Se e 8 C .F.R
. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv); Rodrigue z v. Holde r, 683 F.3d 1164, 1169–70 (9th C ir. 2012).

3 A fa lse c l a im

of c itiz e nship is a

ne gative fa c tor in thegood m ora l c h ara c te r de te rm i nation. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1101(f) (fina l pa ra gra ph, c a tc h -a ll provision); M a tte r of Gua da

rram a de C o ntre ra s , 24 I & N De c . 625, 626–27 (B IA 2008).

22008).As to Gom e z ’ s first a sse rtion, it is not c le ar whe the r the B IA wa s re ly ing on

the t wo insta nc e s found by t

he IJ whe re Gom e z wa s a c tua l ly c a u g ht m a k i ng his fa lse c l a im s of c i tiz e nship, or Gom e z ’ s undispute d te stim ony , upon whic h the IJ did not opine , tha

t he ha d m a de a

pproxim a te ly

te n se pa ra te fa lse c l a im s, or both. As to Gom e z ’ s se c ond a sse rtion, theB IA spe c ific a lly sta te d tha t, a n a lie n who m ake s a fa lse c la im

“ m ay be c onside re d a

pe rson who is not of good m ora l
c ha ra c te r,” but tha

t the c a tc h-a l l provision “ doe s not a utom at ic a lly

m andat e suc h a finding.” Howe ve r, it did not indic a te whe the r it wa s c o nside ring othe r e vide nc e of good m ora l c ha

ra c te r, a bout whic h the IJ m a de no findings a t a ll. 4 W e re c ogniz e tha

t we do not ha

ve jurisdic tion to inquire

into theB IA’ s disc re tiona

ry de te rm i nation tha

t Gom e z la c ke d good m ora l c ha ra c te r. Se e 8 U.S.C
. § 1252(a )(2)(B )(i); Lope z -C a ste lla nos v. Gonz a le s, 437 F.3d 848, 854 (9th C ir. 2006). B y

the sa m e toke n, we do not ha

ve jurisdic tion to we i gh the c ha ra c te r
e vide nc e ourse l ve s. Se e Gutie rre z , 662 F.3d a t 1087 n.4. Howev e r, the B IA did
c om m it le ga l e rror whe n it fa i le d to spe c i fic a lly indic at e what e v ide nc e it ha d
c onside re d a

nd whe the r it c ould utiliz e tha t e vide nc e without further fa c t-finding.

4 W e note tha

t Gom e z wa s not de nie d

the opportunity

to pre se nt good m ora l c ha ra c te r e v ide nc e . Se e U.S. C onst. a m e nd. V; Gutie rre z v. Holde r, 662 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th C ir. 2011). 3Se e Torre s-Guz m an, 804 F.2d a t 534; se e a l so M ovsisia

n v. Ashc roft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th C ir. 2005). The re fore , we c annot c onduc t the pe rm itte d (na y , re quire d) re vie w of its de c ision, a nd we gran t the pe tition on tha t ba sis. Se e De lga do v. Holde r, 648 F.3d 1095, 1108 (9th C ir. 2011) (e n ba nc ). (3) Gom e zfina lly

a sse rts tha

t the B IA im

prope rly fa ile d to rule on his
m otion to re m and to theIJ. W e disa gre e . The re wa s no se pa ra te l y artic ulat e d
m otion to re m and. His re m and re que s t wa s sim ply a pa rt of the a ppe a l itse lf a

nd
wa s dispose d of whe n the B IA rule d on the a ppe a l. Se e Na

ray an v. Ashc roft, 384 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th C ir. 2004). W e de ny this portion of his pe

tition. Pe tition GR

ANTED in pa

rt, DENIED in pa

rt, a nd REM ANDED. The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l
.

4