Jose Candido Morales Guzman; Maria Mercedes Morales Martinez 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).
JTK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE CANDIDO MORALES GUZMAN;
MARIA MERCEDES MORALES
MARTINEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72485
Agency Nos. A095-306-425
A095-306-426
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Candido Morales Guzman and Maria Mercedes Morales Martinez,
married natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of
FILED
FEB 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

JTK/Research 07-72485 2
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual determinations, Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 742, 744 (9th
Cir. 2007), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that petitioners were
statutorily barred from establishing good moral character because petitioners
admitted to paying a smuggler to drive themselves and their child, who also lacked
documentation to legally enter the United States, across the border. See 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1229b(b)(1)(B), 1101(f)(3); Urzua Covarrubias, 487 F.3d at 748-49 (substantial
evidence supported determination that alien aided and abetted another alien’s
illegal entry into the United States). The family unity waiver of inadmissibility
under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(11) is not available to aliens seeking to establish good
moral character for the purposes of cancellation of removal. Sanchez v. Holder,
560 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of voluntary
departure. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229c(f), 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Petitioners’ due process

-- 2 of 3 --

JTK/Research 07-72485 3
claim regarding the denial of voluntary departure is not colorable. See
Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --