Martinez-Pioquinto

dissenting:

The majority leans heavily on Sanchez v. Holder, 560 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc). I continue to abide by my view that Sanchez should be overturned because it makes a mockery of our nation’s core values. See id. at 1036 (Pregerson, J., dissenting).

Like Sanchez , this is a case about a good and industrious husband and father who established a loving home for himself, his wife, Guillermina Carrera Abad (“Guillermina”), and their five American-born citizen children. Martinez-Pioquinto works as an assembler in Anaheim, California, with the same company he has worked for since 1990. He has paid his taxes every year since arriving in the United States. The couple’s children have done well in school. The family attends church together. Martinez-Pioquinto has never been detained by immigration officials and has not been convicted of any criminal misconduct.

Martinez-Pioquinto and Guillermina both applied for cancellation of removal based on the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship that their deportation would cause to their qualifying U.S.-citizen children. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). Their second son was born prematurely and suffers from developmental delays and…

MEMORANDUM **

Martinez-Pioquinto is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because he failed to demonstrate “good moral character” for the ten-year period before the date of his application. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(l)(B), 1101(f)(3). Specifically, Martinez-Pioquinto admitted to knowingly assisting his fiancee to “enter the United States in violation of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(6)(E)®. The family reunification exception to removability does not aid Martinez-Pioquinto, because it is applicable only to waivers of admissibility, not to the establishment of “good moral character,” see Sanchez v. Holder, 560 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc); and even then applies only to aliens who assisted “the alien’s spouse, parent, son, or daughter (and no other individual)” before May 5, 1988, 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (a)(l)(E)(ii). The smuggling incident here occurred after May 5, 1988, and involved petitioner’s fiancée, not his wife.

Like the dissent, we recognize that Martinez-Pioquinto is a sympathetic figure. But like the immigration judge, we are bound by the law as it is, not the law as it might (or should) be. The IJ did not err in denying Martinez-Pioquinto’s application…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 17 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EVARISTO MARTINEZ-PIOQUINTO, No. 05-75013

Petitioner, Agency No. A079-525-930

v.

MEMORANDUM *

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 16, 2011 ** Pasadena, California

Before: PREGERSON, D.W. NELSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Martinez-Pioquinto is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal

because he failed to demonstrate “good moral character” for the ten-year period

before the date of his application. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(1)(B), 1101(f)(3).

Specifically, Martinez-Pioquinto admitted to knowingly assisting his fiancee to

* 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). “enter the United States in violation of law.” 8 U.S.C. §…