FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 10 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANTIAGO GOMEZ-HERNANDEZ, No. 10-72234
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-319-408
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 5, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: GOULD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and ENGLAND, Chief District
Judge.***
*
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).
***
The Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief District Judge for the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, sitting by designation.
Petitioner Santiago Gomez-Hernandez petitions this court for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing Petitioner’s appeal of
the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal.
1. The BIA properly determined that Petitioner was removable based on
counsel’s concession at the merits hearing before the IJ. That concession was a
judicial admission binding on Petitioner. See Hakopian v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 843,
846 (9th Cir. 2008).
2. The BIA also properly rejected Petitioner’s argument that the
Government initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner based on information
pertaining to the denial of his legalization application. The record is clear, and
Petitioner admitted, that Petitioner is a citizen or national of Mexico, that he
applied to adjust his status, and that his application was denied. The Government
only served Petitioner with a Notice to Appear after that denial issued, and there is
no indication in the record that the removability charges against Petitioner were
based on his prior legalization proceedings.
3. The record supports the IJ’s conclusion that Petitioner testified
untruthfully about the occasions on which he had made false claims to United
States citizenship. He was thus ineligible for relief from removal because he could
not establish the requisite good moral character. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b),
2
1229c(b). Nothing in the record supports Petitioner’s theory that the IJ was biased
against Petitioner or acted in any way other than as a neutral adjudicator.
PETITION DENIED.
3