Mailin Estevez-Portillo v. Matthew Whitaker ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAILIN ESTEVEZ-PORTILLO, No. 16-73930
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-150-905
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Mailin Estevez-Portillo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of removal. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
*
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).
agency’s continuous physical presence determination. Zarate v. Holder, 671 F.3d
1132, 1134 (9th Cir. 2012). We review de novo claims of due process violations.
Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Estevez-
Portillo did not show the requisite ten years of continuous physical presence to
establish eligibility for cancellation of removal, where she testified she entered the
United States after her fifteenth birthday, which is months short of the point at
which she needed to establish presence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Zarate,
671 F.3d at 1134 (“Under the substantial evidence standard, a petitioner can obtain
reversal only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.”).
The record does not support Estevez-Portillo’s contention that the IJ was
aggressive in questioning her, such that the IJ was no longer impartial, or otherwise
violated due process. See Lianhua Jiang, 754 F.3d at 741 (no lack of IJ
impartiality, where IJ’s questions were an attempt to clarify the relationship
between the alien and a witness, and not an indication of bias).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 16-73930