From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ramirez-Martinez v. Sessions

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 18, 2018
No. 16-73716 (9th Cir. Jun. 18, 2018)

Opinion

No. 16-73716

06-18-2018

HUMBERTO RAMIREZ-MARTINEZ, AKA Luis Ramirez-Martinez, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Agency No. A201-240-432 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Humberto Ramirez-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies in Ramirez-Martinez's testimony. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (adverse credibility determination supported under the totality of circumstances).

We reject Ramirez-Martinez's contention that the agency erred in not considering his wife's pregnancy and the subsequent birth of his fourth child in its hardship determination, where he failed to sufficiently raise those issues before the agency. See Segura v. Holder, 605 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2010) (broad statements in the notice of appeal and brief were insufficient to put the BIA on notice of petitioner's claim).

We also reject Ramirez-Martinez's contention that the BIA was required to address the issue of continuous physical presence, where the agency's hardship determination was independently dispositive. See Camacho-Cruz v. Holder, 621 F.3d 941, 942 (9th Cir. 2010) (failure to satisfy any one of the statutory requirements is fatal to a cancellation application). For the same reason, we need not reach his contentions regarding evidence of physical presence.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Ramirez-Martinez v. Sessions

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 18, 2018
No. 16-73716 (9th Cir. Jun. 18, 2018)
Case details for

Ramirez-Martinez v. Sessions

Case Details

Full title:HUMBERTO RAMIREZ-MARTINEZ, AKA Luis Ramirez-Martinez, Petitioner, v…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 18, 2018

Citations

No. 16-73716 (9th Cir. Jun. 18, 2018)