Jaime Estupinan-De La Hoya v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 17 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAIME ESTUPINAN-DE LA HOYA, No. 13-72377
AKA Jaime Estupian De La Hoya,
Agency No. A077-305-146
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jaime Estupinan-De La Hoya, 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 (“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 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).
agency’s factual findings, Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th
Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel reversal of the agency’s determination that
Estupinan-De La Hoya failed to establish continuous physical presence in the
United States for a period of not less than ten years as required for cancellation of
removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A), where he received voluntary return
following an arrest by the State Department and testified that he spent four to six
hours in custody of the Department of Homeland Security during which time
immigration officials probably told him that he would be put in removal
proceedings, see Zarate v. Holder, 671 F.3d 1132, 1135-1138 (9th Cir. 2012)
(noting that the evidence required to show a formal documented process sufficient
to terminate an alien’s continuous physical presence will vary from case to case,
and describing circumstances that constitute a formal documented process in which
voluntary return may interrupt continuous physical presence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-72377