FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERTO ISAAC DE LEON No. 11-72666
GRAMAJO,
Agency No. A072-172-011
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013 **
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Roberto Isaac de Leon Gramajo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and
*
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).
cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence factual findings, including adverse credibility
findings, Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny in
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on de Leon Gramajo’s admittedly false testimony related to his multiple
departures from the United States to return to Guatemala and the inconsistencies
regarding his age at the time of his claimed arrest in Guatemala. See Dhital v.
Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir.2008) (affirming adverse credibility
determination on the basis of petitioner's “initial filing of a fraudulent asylum
application, combined with his repetition of his fabricated narrative in his asylum
interview and in his first hearing before the IJ”); Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016,
1017-18 (9th Cir. 2008) (applicant’s voluntary returns to home country supported
adverse credibility determination); Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.
2004) (adverse credibility finding supported by key omissions and discrepancies
that went to the heart of the claim). Accordingly, in the absence of credible
testimony, de Leon Gramajo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.
2 11-72666
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
it relies on the same testimony the agency found not credible and de Leon Gramajo
has not pointed to any additional evidence to support this claim. See Farah, 348
F.3d at 1156-57.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
de Leon Gramajo failed to make the requisite showing of exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship to be eligible for cancellation of removal. See
Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2005); see also 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Thus, we do not reach de Leon Gramajo’s other
contentions related to cancellation of removal.
Finally, the IJ found de Leon Gramajo failed to establish the good moral
character required for voluntary departure because he gave false testimony under
oath with the intent to obtain an immigration benefit. We reject de Leon’s
Gramajo’s contention that his false testimony was not material to his voluntary
departure claim. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(6), 1229c(b)(1)(B); Ramos v. INS, 246
F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir. 2001).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 11-72666