Daniel Rodriguez Cordero v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL RODRIGUEZ CORDERO,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71016
Agency No. A201-061-069
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Rodriguez Cordero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-71016
the agency’s factual findings and review de novo constitutional claims. Mohammed
v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s good moral character
determination, where Rodriguez Cordero provided false testimony for the purpose
of obtaining an immigration benefit. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(6) (anyone who has
given false testimony for the purpose of obtaining immigration benefits cannot
show good moral character), 1229b(b)(1)(B) (requiring good moral character for
cancellation of removal); Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir. 2001) (to
preclude good moral character, witness must have had a subjective intent to
deceive for the purpose of obtaining immigration benefits).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that
Rodriguez Cordero did not timely recant, where he failed to correct his previous
testimony until after the IJ confronted him with his wife’s contradictory testimony.
See Valadez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1310 (9th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, Rodriguez Cordero’s due process contention fails. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice
to prevail on a due process challenge).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --