Court Opinion

ID: 9399003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-01 17:01:05.996443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:37.784246
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 1 2023
                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ADRIANA ARELLANO-CRUZ, AKA                         No. 18-70091
Adriana Cruz,
                                                   Agency No. A075-129-692
                   Petitioner,

     v.
                                                   MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
                   Respondent.

                        On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals

                                  Submitted May 15, 2023**
                                     Phoenix, Arizona

Before: NGUYEN, COLLINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

          Petitioner Adriana Arellano-Cruz, a citizen of Mexico, petitions this court

for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming

the Immigration Judge’s denial of her application for discretionary cancellation-of-

removal relief under § 240A(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

(“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Because Arellano-Cruz’s petition challenges

*
 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as
provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
  The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
only the denial of her application for cancellation of removal under INA § 240A,

our jurisdiction is limited to “review of constitutional claims or questions of law.”

8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see also id. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Patel v. Garland, 142

S. Ct. 1614, 1623–27 (2022). We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

      In its ruling, the BIA upheld the Immigration Judge’s factual finding that

Arellano-Cruz had given false testimony under oath in immigration court for the

purpose of obtaining immigration benefits. Based on that finding, the BIA held

that Arellano-Cruz cannot establish the “good moral character” that is required to

establish eligibility for cancellation of removal under § 240A. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229b(b)(1)(B) (stating that, to be eligible for cancellation of removal, the alien

must, inter alia, have “been a person of good moral character” during the relevant

time period); see id. § 1101(f)(6) (“No person shall be regarded as, or found to be,

a person of good moral character who, during the period for which good moral

character is required to be established is, or was[,] . . . one who has given false

testimony for the purpose of obtaining any benefits under this chapter [i.e., the

INA].”).

      In her opening brief in this court, Arellano-Cruz does not identify any error

in the BIA’s decision that involves a “constitutional claim[]” or a “question[] of

law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). She does not, for example, contend that, even if

the agency correctly made a factual finding that she had lied under oath for

                                           2
purposes of obtaining an immigration benefit, the BIA then applied the wrong legal

standards in concluding that she was thereby ineligible for cancellation of removal.

Instead, Arellano-Cruz’s brief asserts only that the agency incorrectly weighed the

evidence in making the factual finding that she had given “false testimony for the

purpose of obtaining” immigration benefits. Id. § 1101(f)(6). Under Patel, we

“lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of discretionary-relief proceedings

under § 1255 [INA § 245] and the other provisions enumerated in

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) [INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(i)].” 142 S. Ct. at 1627. The “other

provisions enumerated in § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i),” id., include “section . . .1229b,” i.e.,

INA § 240A. Because Petitioner challenges only the BIA’s factual finding that she

provided false testimony with the subjective intention of obtaining an immigration

benefit, her challenge therefore falls outside of this court’s subject matter

jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss Arellano-Cruz’s petition for review.

      PETITION DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

                                           3