ADRIANA ARELLANO-CRUZ, AKA Adriana Cruz v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADRIANA ARELLANO-CRUZ, AKA
Adriana Cruz,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70091
Agency No. A075-129-692
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
JUN 1 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 of 3 --

3
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 of 3 --