Patricio Martinez-Segura v. Jefferson Sessions , 677 F. App'x 448 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 22 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRICIO MARTINEZ-SEGURA, No. 15-72963
Petitioner, Agency No. A029-265-075
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Patricio Martinez-Segura, 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.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
*
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).
evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination. Gutierrez v.
Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Martinez-
Segura failed to establish the requisite ten years of continuous physical presence in
the United States for cancellation of removal, where record evidence indicates that
Martinez-Segura requested voluntary departure in lieu of removal proceedings.
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); 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
petitioner’s testimony suggested that he accepted return due to misrepresentations
by immigration officers).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez-Segura’s unexhausted contention
regarding the lack of initials on his Form I-826. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d
1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
Martinez-Segura’s remaining contentions regarding the applicability of
Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 343 F.3d 961 (9th Cir. 2003) and Castrejon-Garcia v.
INS, 60 F.3d 1359 (9th Cir. 1995), and the separation of powers, are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.
2 15-72963