FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 18 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUILLERMO CORCUERA, AKA No. 14-72061
Guillermo Jony Cocuera, AKA John Doe,
AKA Ruben Gomez, AKA Ruben Agency No. A099-026-478
Anthony Gomez,
Petitioner, MEMORANDUM*
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Guillermo Corcuera, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
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 Corcuera’s
false sworn testimony before the IJ, made in an effort to obtain immigration
benefits, statutorily bars him 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).
Accordingly, he is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1)(B).
Because the determination regarding Corcuera’s false testimony is
dispositive, the BIA was not required to address the IJ’s denial of a continuance to
establish hardship for cancellation of removal. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d
532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to
make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they
reach.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). In addition, the BIA did not
ignore Corcuera’s contentions that translation issues resulted in a due process
violation and that the IJ’s ruling was prejudicial and biased, because he failed to
raise those contentions before the BIA. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to
2 14-72061
review those unexhausted contentions. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080
(9th Cir. 2010).
The BIA provided a reasoned explanation for its dismissal. See Najmabadi
v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (reiterating that the BIA need not
“write an exegesis on every contention” raised by a petitioner, so long as it
“consider[s] the issues raised, and announce[s] its decision in terms sufficient [for]
a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted”)
(citations and quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, Corcuera failed to establish that the BIA deprived him of due
process when it dismissed his appeal. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to sustain a due process claim in a
removal proceeding).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Corcuera’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-72061