New 9th Circuit and BIA Immigration Cases

**Credibility**

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding based on  two key inconsistencies in Pattar’s testimony about (1) her husband’s political affiliation, and (2) her alleged physical and sexual abuse at the hands of the local police. Although reasonable minds could disagree as to the consistency of Pattar’s testimony on the latter, the evidence in the record does not compel a result contrary to the IJ’s determination.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2010/03/01/05-75404.pdf

**False testimony/GMC**

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Vasquez Arellanes provided false testimony for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit, thereby rendering her unable to establish the requisite good moral character for
cancellation of removal.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2010/03/01/05-76399.pdf

**Due process**

Abundez-Abundez’s claim that the IJ violated his due process rights by refusing to consider new hardship evidence on remand fails in light of the BIA’s subsequent consideration of the evidence on appeal.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2010/03/01/06-74755.pdf

**MTR**

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than 8 years after the BIA’s May 23, 1997, order dismissing their appeal.  The BIA acted within its discretion in determining that the evidence submitted with the motion to reopen failed to establish the due diligence required to warrant tolling of the motions deadline.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2010/03/01/06-75372.pdf

**MRec**

The BIA was within its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s June 23, 2006, decision denying reopening.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2010/03/01/06-75470.pdf