Fredy Antonio Alas Recinos; Lourdes E. Reyes Maldonado v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FREDY ANTONIO ALAS RECINOS;
LOURDES E. REYES MALDONADO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70459
Agency Nos. A094-379-163
A095-024-724
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 4, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: TROTT, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Fredy Antonio Alas Recino and Lourdes E. Reyes Maldonado, natives and
citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
FILED
DEC 26 2013
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 2 --

denying Recinos’s application for special rule cancellation of removal under
Section 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act.
Maldonado, Recinos’s spouse, is a derivative beneficiary of his application. 8
C.F.R. §§ 1240.61(a)(4), 1240.65(b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1252, and we dismiss the petition for review.
The IJ determined that Recinos could not establish “good moral character,” a
statutory predicate for special rule cancellation, because he had testified falsely.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(b)(3); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6). The IJ alternatively declined to
grant relief on discretionary grounds. The BIA affirmed on both the statutory and
discretionary grounds. Because we lack jurisdiction to consider the alternative
discretionary denial, and that denial disposes of petitioners’ claims, we must
dismiss the petition for review relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Lopez-
Castellanos v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION DISMISSED.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --