Omar Manuel Monarrez Guerrero 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OMAR MANUEL MONARREZ
GUERRERO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70704
Agency No. A096-694-812
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012**
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Omar Manuel Monarrez Guerrero, 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 his application for
FILED
AUG 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-70704 2
cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521
F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Monarrez
Guerrero failed to establish the requisite ten years of continuous physical presence
for cancellation of removal where he repeatedly testified that he first entered the
United States on December 12, 1997, and he was served with a Notice to Appear
less than ten years later. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A). Monarrez Guerrero’s
contention that he continued to accrue presence until his final hearing before the IJ
is unavailing. See id. § 1229b(d)(1)(A) (period of continuous physical presence
ends upon service of Notice to Appear).
We need not address Monarrez Guerrero’s contentions concerning the
remaining requirements for cancellation of removal.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --