FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS E. BENAVIDES, No. 13-73545
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-147-798
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Carlos E. Benavides, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for special rule cancellation of
removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. Our
*
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).
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
determinations regarding good moral character. Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales,
487 F.3d 742, 747 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Benavides
gave false testimony regarding his participation in Alcoholics Anonymous for the
purpose of obtaining a favorable exercise of discretion and is therefore statutorily
precluded from demonstrating good moral character under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6).
See Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir. 2001). Benavides’s claim that the
agency failed to consider the cumulative effect of the testimony is not supported by
the record.
The agency’s determination that Benavides did not timely recant is also
supported by substantial evidence, where Benavides failed to attempt to correct his
previous testimony until after he was confronted by the IJ and government counsel.
See Valadez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1310 (9th Cir. 2010) (where an
applicant made the retraction only after being confronted with evidence of his
misrepresentation, the applicant cannot take advantage of the timely recantation
doctrine). Contrary to Benavides’s contention, the BIA applied the correct
standard regarding recantation.
2 13-73545
We lack jurisdiction to consider Benavides’s contention that his admissions
should have been excluded because of the form of the questions asked by his prior
counsel. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack
jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative
proceedings before the BIA.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-73545