Francisco Javier Alvarado- Rodriguez v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO JAVIER ALVARADO-
RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-71399
Agency No. A077-139-436
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 5, 2019**
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: IKUTA and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK,*** District Judge.
Francisco Javier Alvarado-Rodriguez petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of an Immigration
FILED
MAR 14 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Frederic Block, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Judge (IJ) denying his claim for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(a). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.1
The IJ properly “weigh[ed] the credible testimony along with other evidence
of record,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(B), to determine that Alvarado-Rodriguez failed
to carry his burden of demonstrating that he had entered the United States with
inspection in 1992. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the IJ
did not clearly err by giving Alvarado-Rodriguez’s testimony less weight (because
he had a motive to misrepresent his method of entry) and giving Alvarado-
Rodriguez’s prior applications for immigration benefits greater weight (because the
applications were made with the assistance of counsel and signed by Alvarado-
Rodriguez’s father under penalty of perjury). Substantial evidence also supports
the BIA’s conclusion that the IJ did not clearly err in giving less weight to the
unsworn statement of Alvarado-Rodriguez’s aunt, because the aunt did not appear
for cross-examination and because her statement lacked sufficient detail. Finally,
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the IJ did not clearly err by
1 Because the IJ denied Alvarado-Rodriguez’s relief based on his failure to
demonstrate the seven years of continuous residence required under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(a)(2), rather than in reliance on his criminal convictions, we reject the
government’s argument that we lack jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) to
review Alvarado-Rodriguez’s final order of removal. See Pechenkov v. Holder,
705 F.3d 444, 448 (9th Cir. 2012).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

giving less weight to the testimony of Alvarado-Rodriguez’s mother, because she
did not accompany Alvarado-Rodriguez in the car at the time of entry and because
she had not corrected Alvarado-Rodriguez’s applications for immigration benefits,
although she had been involved in their preparation.
Because the IJ’s conclusion that Alvarado-Rodriguez failed to carry his
burden of demonstrating that he had entered the United States with inspection in
1992 is supported by substantial evidence, Alvarado-Rodriguez has not shown that
he resided “continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status,” 8
U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2), and therefore is not entitled to cancellation of removal.
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --