NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 4 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TOMAS H. ACOSTA LOPEZ, AKA Juan No. 16-70896 Antonio Acosta, Agency No. A073-978-431 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 16, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: NGUYEN and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and BAYLSON,*** District Judge. Tomas Acosta Lopez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his * 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 Michael M. Baylson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. application for Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”), asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Lopez contests the materiality of a misrepresentation he made while seeking asylum, employment authorization, and TPS. Whether his misrepresentation was material presents a mixed question of fact and law, which we review for substantial evidence. See Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009); Khadka v. Holder, 618 F.3d 996, 1002 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Lopez’s use of a false identity, including his reliance on a false birth certificate and passport, in seeking asylum, employment authorization, and TPS constituted a material misrepresentation under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). Lopez does not contest that he relied on the false identity and documents, but argues that his misrepresentation was not material because he did not benefit from it. It does not matter whether Lopez was eligible for the benefits he sought notwithstanding the misrepresentation. It is enough that his misrepresentation had a natural tendency to influence his applications for asylum, employment authorization, and TPS. See Forbes v. I.N.S., 48 F.3d 439, 442 (9th Cir. 1995) (explaining that a misrepresentation is material if it has “a natural tendency to influence” an agency decision (citation omitted)). Here, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding 2 16-70896 that the misrepresentation was likely to influence Lopez’s asylum claim. Indeed, it was relevant to the “key element” of establishing his identity. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (recognizing identity as one of the “key elements” of an asylum claim). Lopez’s motive in misrepresenting his identity is also of no consequence. The law simply requires that he made the misrepresentation knowingly, and Lopez does not contest that he did so. See Forbes, 48 F.3d at 442 (discussing willful misrepresentation to procure a visa under § 1182(a)(19)). 2. Lopez has waived any arguments about the following issues before this Court: (1) the BIA’s waiver findings ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals