N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SANTIAGO M AR TINEZ,

Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-72593 Age n c y No. A070-063-758
M EM O R ANDUM *

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 De c e m

be r 5, 2017 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : D.W . NELSON a nd REINHAR

DT, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd STEEH, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED DEC 07 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Ge orge C ara m

Ste e h III, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of M ic higa n, sitting by

de signa tion.Santia go M artine z (“ Pe titione r” or “ M a rtine z ” ), a nat ive and c itiz e n of Guate m a la , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ s (“ B IA” ) de nia l of his c l a im

for spe c ia l rule c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l unde r Se c tion 203 of the Nic ara gua

n Adjustm e nt a

nd C e ntra l Am e ric a

n R e lie f Ac t (“

NAC AR A” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w de novo que stions of la w, whic h inc l ude the “ a

p plic a tion of la

w to undispute d fa c ts.” Barrios v . Holde r , 581 F.3d 849, 857 (9th C ir. 2009) (c ita tions a n d inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d). “ Fa c tua l findings a re re v i e we d for substa

ntia l e vide nc e . ” Id. at 854 (c i tation om itte d). W e G RANT the pe t ition for re vie w a nd RE M AND
. 1. Unde r Se c tion 309(f) of theIlle ga l Im m igrat ion a

nd Im m igra nt R e sponsibility

Ac t (“ IIR IR

A ” ), a s a m e nde d by

Se c tion 203 of NAC AR

A, the Attorne y Ge ne ra l ha s disc re tion to “ c anc e l re m ova l of, a nd a d just to the sta tus of
an a l ie n la wfully a dm itte d for pe rm ane nt re side nc e ” an a lie n who, a m ong othe r things, de m onstra

te s he “ ha s be e n a

pe rson of good m o ra l c ha ra c te r” during the“ 7 y e ars im m e diate ly pre c e ding the date of [his] [NAC A R A] a pplic a tion.” IIR IR

A § 309(f), as ame nde d by NAC AR A § 203. “

No pe rson ‘ who ha s give n fa lse te stim ony for the purpose of obta ining a ny [im m igrat ion] be ne fits’ during the
re le va nt pe riod for whic h good m ora l c ha ra c te r is re quire d sha l l be found to be a

2pe rson of good m o ra l c ha ra c te r.” Aragon-Salazar v . Holde r , 769 F.3d 699, 701–02 (9th C ir. 2014) (c i ting 8 U.S.C . § 1101(f)(6)). The only issue we m

ust re a c h is whe the r it wa s prope r for the IJ, in a sse ssing M artine z ’ s “ good m ora l c h ara c te r” unde r NAC AR A, to c onside r the a lle ge dly fa l se te stim ony he gave at he arings c onduc te d in 2003, 2007, a n d 2011, whe n he file d his initial NAC AR

A a p p lic a tion in 2000. Petitione r a l le ge s the se ve n-y e ar pe riod for showing “ good m ora l c ha ra c te r” e nde d on Nove m

be r 6, 2000, whe n he file d his initia l a pplic a tion. Thegove rnm e nt c onte n ds the se ve n-y e ar pe riod e n de d on M ay 25, 2010, whe n h e file d his upda te d a pplic a tion. In Aragon-Salazar , this C ourt he ld “ the se ve n-y e ar pe riod during whic h good m ora l c ha

ra c te r is re quire d unde r NAC AR A e nds on the

date of the filing of the a pplic ation .” 769 F.3d a

t 701 (e m pha s is a dde d). “ [U] p date s to [the ] initia l
a pplic a tion” do not e xte n d the pe riod unde r whic h a c ourt a sse sse s good m o ra l
c ha ra c te r. Id. at 706–07. He re , M artine z file d his initia l a pplic a tion on Nove m

be r 6, 2000, a nd he m ust the re fore “ show good m ora l c ha ra c te r [during] the se ve n-y e ar pe riod pre c e ding [this da

te ] .” Id. at 707. “ [M artine z ’ s] purporte dly fa lse sta te m e nts we re give n [in 2003, 2007, a nd 2011] .” Id. “ [All] of the s e date s a re outside the re le va

nt tim e pe riod during which good m ora l c ha ra c te r is re q

uire d

3unde r NAC AR A [Se c tion] 203,” and he n c e , the B IA e rre d in a ffirm ing the IJ’ s de nia l of M artine z ’ s NAC AR A a pplic a tion on this ba s is. Id. 2. The gove rnm e nt’ s c onte n tions M artine z ’ s initia l a pplic a tion wa s withdra wn, a nd tha t he file d a

ne w a pplic a t ion on M ay

25, 2010, a

re m e ritle ss unde r the c irc um sta

nc e s of this c a se . First, ne ithe r the IJ nor the B IA m a de any findings a s to whe the r Pe titione r— or som e one e l se
— w ithdre w the initia l a

pplic a tion. Inde e d, the B IA
a ppe ars to ha

ve he ld the se ve n -y e ar pe riod for a sse ssing good mora l c ha ra c te r
e nde d in 2011, when the IJ issue d he r de c ision on the a p plic a tion, not on the

date s Pe titione r file d his initia

l and upda

te d a pplic at ions. Suc h a finding, howe ve r, runs
c ontra ry to Aragon-Salazar , whe re this C ourt he l d a NAC AR A a pplic ant ne e d not

“ show good m ora l c ha

ra c t e r up to the point [of] a fina l a dm inistra

tive de c ision” be c a use the a p plic a tion is not “ c ontinuing” in na t ure . Se e id. at 702 (c ita

tion
om i tte d). Eve n if the im

m igration judge or the B IA ha d m a de a finding the a

pplic a tion ha d be e n withdra

wn, it wa s not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide n c e . Barrios , 581 F.3d at 854 (c ita

tion om itte d). He re , the B IA sua sponte re o pe ne d this c a se on De c e m b e r 29, 2009, base d on the immigration judge ’s failure to c onside r Martine z ’s initial N

AC ARA applic a tion, filed on N ov e m be r 6, 2000 . If the 4a

pplic a tion ha d be e n withdra w n, the re would ha

ve be e n no ne e d

for the B IA to
re m and the c a se to the im m i gra tion judgeto c o nside r the a pplic a tion in the

first insta nc e . On re m and, the im

m igration judgepe rm itte d M artine z to file an

“ am e nde d” NAC AR

A a pplic a tion, a

nd M artine z file d his “ UPDATED . . . APPLIC A TION FOR

. . . SPEC IAL R

ULE C ANC ELLATION OF R EM OVAL” on M ay 25, 2010. Finally , M artine z ’ s c o unse l ne ve r c onc e d e d the a c c ura c y

of the gove rnm e nt la

w y e r’ s c l a im

tha t the origina l a

pplic a tion wa s withdra

wn, a nd the gove rnm e nt introduc e d no e vide nc e to support tha t c la im . He nc e , unde r the
c irc um s ta nc e s of this c a se , the fa c ts e sta blish Pe titione r file d

an u pdate to his initia

l
a pplic a tion, not a

ne w a pplic ation. Give n only

the initia l a

p plic a tion da

te , a nd not thedate of a

ny upda te , c ontrols whe n the se ve n-y e ar pe riod for de m onstra ting good mora l c ha

ra c te r e nds, the t im e pe riod e nde d in this c a se on Nove m be r 6, 2000. Se eAragon-Salazar , 769 F.3d at 701, 706–07. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W G RANT E D; RE M ANDE D .

5