FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 21 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LESLIE YAHAIRA GASCA-GARCIA, No. 13-70461
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-268-172
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Leslie Yahaira Gasca-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for cancellation of removal
and voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
review for substantial evidence determinations 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 agency’s determination that Gasca-Garcia
is statutorily barred from establishing the good moral character necessary to
qualify for cancellation of removal, where she gave false testimony under oath in
immigration court with the subjective intent to obtain an immigration benefit. See
8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(6), 1229b(b)(1)(B); Ramos, 246 F.3d at 1266 (“For a witness’s
false testimony to preclude a finding of good moral character, the testimony must
have been made orally and under oath, and the witness must have had a subjective
intent to deceive for the purpose of obtaining immigration benefits.”).
Contrary to Gasca-Garcia’s contentions, the agency’s good moral character
determination is not undermined by the fact that she did not ultimately gain a
benefit from her false testimony, see Ramos, 246 F.3d at 1266 (“Whether [an alien]
eventually received benefits because of the false testimony is irrelevant; the statute
only refers to statements made ‘for the purpose of obtaining’ any immigration
benefits, not that resulted in such benefits.” (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6))), or the
fact that she ultimately testified truthfully when confronted with evidence that
conflicted her false testimony, see Valadez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1310
2 13-70461
(9th Cir. 2010) (where an alien “recants only when confronted with evidence of his
prevarication, the amelioration [of recantation] is not available,” as “recantation
must be voluntary and without delay” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
To the extent Gasca-Garcia challenges the agency’s denial of her application
for voluntary departure, we lack jurisdiction to consider this unexhausted
contention. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court
lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative
proceedings before the agency).
Gasca-Garcia’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-70461