Gilberto Gonzalez Gonzalez v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

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).
LR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GILBERTO GONZALEZ GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73739
Agency No. A029-182-266
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Gilberto Gonzales Gonzalez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming without
opinion an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for special
FILED
FEB 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LR/Research 07-73739 2
rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central
American Relief Act (“NACARA”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s continuous physical presence
finding, Landin-Zavala v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 1150, 1151 (9th Cir. 2007), and we
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Gonzalez Gonzalez
did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement where the record
indicates that he was deported from the United States in 2003. See id. at 1153
(deportation or removal terminates the accrual of physical presence); see also 8
C.F.R. § 1240.64(b)(3) (removal from United States terminates accrual of physical
presence for special rule cancellation of removal applicants).
To the extent it is raised, we lack jurisdiction to review Gonzalez Gonzalez’s
contention that as the spouse of a NACARA grantee, he is not required to meet the
continuous physical presence requirement, because he did not exhaust that issue
before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s September 18, 2001, order denying
Gonzalez Gonzalez’s motion to reopen because he failed to timely petition for
review of that decision. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --