Martha Angelica Sanchez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTHA ANGELICA SANCHEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70649
Agency No. A072-404-012
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Martha Angelica Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for cancellation of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
FILED
JUN 10 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70649 2
evidence a finding of statutory ineligibility for cancellation of removal based on a
lack of good moral character, Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir.
2005), overruled on other grounds by Sanchez v. Holder, 560 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir.
2009) (en banc), and for clear error whether or not a person has the subjective
intent to deceive in order to obtain immigration benefits, United States v.
Hovsepian, 422 F.3d 883, 885 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Sanchez gave
false testimony to obtain an immigration benefit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6)
(applicant who has given false testimony to obtain an immigration benefit is
ineligible for relief that requires a showing of good moral character). Sanchez
testified to the IJ and the asylum officer that she had not been arrested or
convicted, despite her 1991 arrest and conviction for falsely claiming United States
citizenship and attempted illegal re-entry. See Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266
(9th Cir. 2001) (false testimony to asylum officer established lack of good moral
character). The IJ’s account of the evidence was plausible in light of the record
viewed in its entirety. See Hovsepian, 422 F.3d at 885-86.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --