CARLOS BENAVIDES V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-73545 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 25 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLOS E. BENAVIDES, Petitioner, No. 13-73545 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
