Ramon Mendoza Lopez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RAMON MENDOZA LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71015
Agency No. A094-211-402
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ramon Mendoza Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for relief from
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for
FILED
SEP 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-71015 2
substantial evidence the agency’s determination regarding good moral character,
Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir. 2001), we deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Mendoza Lopez
is statutorily barred from establishing the good moral character required to qualify
for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure because he voluntarily gave
false testimony under oath at his asylum interview in 2007 with the subjective
intent to obtain an immigration benefit. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(6),
1229b(b)(1)(B), 1229c(b)(1)(B); Castillo-Cruz v. Holder, 581 F.3d 1154, 1162
(9th Cir. 2009) (holding that the period for demonstrating good moral character “is
calculated backwards from the date on which the . . . application is finally resolved
by the IJ or the BIA”); Ramos, 246 F.3d at 1266 (concluding that a petitioner who
had made false statements under oath during an asylum interview had given false
testimony for the purpose of obtaining immigration benefits and could therefore
not establish good moral character, even though she had later withdrawn her
asylum application and had admitted to the immigration judge that she had lied
during the interview).
We lack jurisdiction to review Mendoza Lopez’s challenges to the validity
of his oath at the asylum interview because he failed to raise these contentions

-- 2 of 3 --

11-71015 3
before the BIA. See Ramos, 246 F.3d at 1267 (“Failure to raise an argument before
the BIA deprives this court of jurisdiction.” (citations omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --