NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 09 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FILOGONIA ROSA ELIA NOYOLA No. 10-73303
RODRIQUEZ,
Agency No. A079-281-582
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SACK,*** and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Filogonia Rosa Elia Noyola Rodriquez, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of her application
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Robert D. Sack, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
for cancellation of removal or voluntary departure based on her inability to
establish the requisite good moral character.
"No person shall be regarded as, or found to be, a person of good moral
character who, during the period for which good moral character is required to be
established, . . . has given false testimony for the purpose of obtaining any benefits
under [the Immigration and Nationality Act]." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6). This Court
has previously determined that Noyola Rodriquez gave false testimony, Noyola
Rodriguez v. Gonzales, 168 F. App'x 233, 234 (9th Cir. 2006), and there is
substantial evidence in the record to support the immigration judge's determination
on remand that her purpose in doing so was to obtain an immigration benefit,
Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 742, 747 (9th Cir. 2007). Because the
IJ's determination rendered Noyola Rodiquez statutorily ineligible for cancellation
of removal or voluntary departure, there was no need to consider other evidence of
her moral character. Thus, the IJ's decision not to do so did not violate the scope of
this Court's previous remand order, and, even assuming Noyola Rodriquez's due
process rights were violated, she cannot show prejudice. See Larita-Martinez v.
I.N.S., 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.
2