Edwin Lopez-Mendez v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 19 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDWIN LOPEZ-MENDEZ, No. 16-70642 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-756-777 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 16, 2018** Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Edwin Lopez-Mendez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence * 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 agency's continuous physical presence determination, Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2008), 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 determination that Lopez- Mendez failed to establish the requisite ten years of continuous physical presence for cancellation of removal, where the record contains a signed Form I-826 and he has not shown that his acceptance of administrative voluntary departure in lieu of removal proceedings was not knowing and voluntary. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Gutierrez, 521 F.3d at 1117-18 (requiring some evidence that the alien was informed of and accepted the terms of the voluntary departure agreement). Lopez-Mendez’s testimony does not compel a contrary conclusion, where he was given an opportunity to read the Form I-826 before signing it and where he has not shown that the representations of immigration officials were inaccurate or misleading. Cf. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 619-20 (9th Cir. 2006) (insufficient evidence that alien knowingly and voluntarily accepted voluntary departure where record did not contain the voluntary departure form and alien’s testimony suggested that he accepted return due to misrepresentations by immigration authorities). Lopez-Mendez’s related due process claim fails for lack of prejudice. See id. 2 16-70642 at 620-21. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 16-70642 16-70642 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Edwin Lopez-Mendez v. Jefferson Sessions 19 January 2018 Agency Unpublished cea65b5985f43b96438d4e9d83656784f43178bf

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals