Raymundo Partida Ramirez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMUNDO PARTIDA RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73061
Agency No. A092-829-792
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Raymundo Partida Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal
order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions
FILED
FEB 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

of law, Corona-Mendez v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1143, 1146 (9th Cir. 2010), and we
deny the petition for review.
At the time Ramirez adjusted to legal permanent resident status he failed to
disclose his conviction for committing a lewd act upon a child, which he conceded
was a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude. Accordingly, the BIA did
not err in determining that Ramirez is ineligible for a fraud waiver under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(1)(H) because he was inadmissible at the time of his adjustment of status
due to his conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude, rather than because of
fraud alone. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H) (a waiver is available for aliens
removable on the ground that they were inadmissible at the time of admission due
to fraud or misrepresentation, and were otherwise admissible at the time of such
admission); Corona-Mendez, 593 F.3d at 1146-48 (where an alien is inadmissible
on more than one ground he is not “otherwise admissible” for purposes of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(1)(H) waiver eligibility).
As Ramirez is not now seeking adjustment, the BIA did not err in
determining that Ramirez is ineligible for a section 212(h) waiver. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1245.1(f); see also Matter of Rivas, 26 I. & N. Dec. 130, 131-35 (BIA 2013) (a
212(h) waiver is available only in conjunction with an application to adjust status
and may not be granted nunc pro tunc).
12-73061 2

-- 2 of 3 --

The BIA did not err in concluding that Ramirez is ineligible for former
section 212(c) relief because Ramirez fraudulently obtained his legal permanent
residence status in the United States, and therefore was never lawfully admitted for
permanent status as required by former section 212(c). See Monet v. INS, 791 F.2d
752, 753 (9th Cir. 1986) (former section 212(c) relief is unavailable to an alien
who is not lawfully admitted).
Ramirez’s motion to stay removal is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
.
12-73061 3

-- 3 of 3 --