Jose Sanchez-Ramos v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MIGUEL SANCHEZ-RAMOS, AKA No. 16-72517
Jose Miguel Gutierrez, AKA Jose Sanchez,
AKA Jose Miguel Sanchez, AKA Jose Agency No. A200-967-140
Muguel Santibanez,
Petitioner, MEMORANDUM*
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Miguel Sanchez-Ramos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction
*
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).
is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny
in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the determination that Sanchez-Ramos failed
to establish ten years of continuous physical presence for cancellation of removal,
where the record includes a signed Form I-826 in Spanish indicating that he
accepted administrative voluntary departure in lieu of removal proceedings in
2011. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 343 F.3d 961,
974 (9th Cir. 2003) (alien’s acceptance of administrative voluntary departure
interrupts the accrual of continuous physical presence); Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521
F.3d 1114, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring some evidence that alien was
informed of and accepted the terms of the voluntary departure agreement).
Sanchez-Ramos’ testimony does not compel a contrary conclusion. 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).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of voluntary
departure, and Sanchez-Ramos’ related due process contention is not a colorable
claim that invokes our jurisdiction. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174,
2 16-72517
1177 (9th Cir. 2013) (the court’s jurisdiction over challenges to the denial of
voluntary departure is limited to constitutional claims or questions of law);
Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (absent a colorable
legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary
determinations).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.
3 16-72517