Edwin Lopez-Mendez v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWIN LOPEZ-MENDEZ, No. 16-70642
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-756-777
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Edwin Lopez-Mendez, 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.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
*
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).
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, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lopez-
Mendez failed to establish the requisite ten years of continuous physical presence
for cancellation of removal, where the record contains a signed Form I-826 and he
has not shown that his acceptance of administrative voluntary departure in lieu of
removal proceedings was not knowing and voluntary. 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). Lopez-Mendez’s testimony does not compel a contrary conclusion,
where he was given an opportunity to read the Form I-826 before signing it and
where he has not shown that the representations of immigration officials were
inaccurate or misleading. 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
alien’s testimony suggested that he accepted return due to misrepresentations by
immigration authorities).
Lopez-Mendez’s related due process claim fails for lack of prejudice. See id.
2 16-70642
at 620-21.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-70642