Arturo Gonzalez Curiel v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTURO GONZALEZ CURIEL; et al., No. 08-72105
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A073-833-370
A075-308-803
v. A075-308-808
A075-308-809
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, A075-308-919
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Arturo Gonzalez Curiel, his wife, and three of their children, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
denying Gonzalez Curiel’s application for cancellation of removal. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s continuous physical presence determination, Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521
F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2008), and review de novo questions of law, including
due process challenges, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.
2003). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gonzalez
Curiel knowingly and voluntarily accepted administrative voluntary departure in
lieu of deportation proceedings where the Spanish-language administrative
voluntary departure agreement reflected that Gonzalez Curiel had time to review
the agreement before signing it. See 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). The agency therefore properly concluded that
Gonzalez Curiel did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement for
cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft,
343 F.3d 961, 974 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam).
We reject petitioners’ due process contention because the record reflects that
the IJ provided them a “full and fair hearing” and a “reasonable opportunity to
2 08-72105
present evidence on [their] behalf.” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.
2000).
Petitioners’ remaining contentions are not persuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-72105