Armando Lopez-Paz v. Loretta E. Lynch

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 02 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMANDO LOPEZ-PAZ, AKA Joel No. 14-73971
Lopez-Rodriguez,
Agency No. A200-088-961
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 26, 2016**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Armando Lopez-Paz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal, and
denying his motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
review for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence
determination, Serrano Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2008),
and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, Movsisian v.
Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1097-98 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lopez-Paz did
not demonstrate the ten years of continuous physical presence required for
cancellation of removal, where Lopez-Paz testified that he departed the United
States for a period of more than 90 days during the statutory period. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1)(A), (d)(2) (a departure in excess of 90 days breaks continuous
physical presence).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez-Paz’ motion to
remand, where Lopez-Paz failed to establish that the evidence he submitted was
unavailable at the time of his removal hearing. See Angov v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 893,
897 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Since a motion to remand is so similar to a motion to reopen,
the motion to remand should be drafted in conformity with the regulations
pertinent to motions to reopen[.]” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(1) (“A motion to reopen proceedings shall not be granted unless it
appears to the Board that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not
2 14-73971
available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former
hearing[.]”).
We deny Lopez-Paz’ motion to supplement the record on appeal. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (“the court of appeals shall decide the petition only on the
administrative record on which the order of removal is based”).
We also deny Lopez-Paz’ request to remand to the BIA based on potential
eligibility for new relief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en
banc) (new evidence may be added to the record through a motion to reopen with
the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-73971