Rafael Roa-Figueroa 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RAFAEL ROA-FIGUEROA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73316
Agency No. A073-806-103
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Rafael Roa-Figueroa, 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 de novo questions of law,
FILED
JUL 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-73316 2
Vasquez de Alcantar v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1097, 1099 (9th Cir. 2011), and review
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft,
381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
The agency properly concluded that Roa-Figueroa was ineligible for
cancellation of removal because he failed to meet the seven-year continuous
physical presence requirement. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2), (d)(1) (requiring seven
years of continuous residence after having been “admitted in any status” and
stopping accrual upon service of a Notice to Appear (“NTA”)).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Roa-Figueroa was
properly served with his NTA where the signed certificate of service indicates it
was personally served on him. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.13; Kohli v. Gonzales, 473
F.3d 1061, 1068 (9th Cir. 2007) (applying a presumption of regularity regarding
the official acts of public officers). Roa-Figueroa’s contention that his NTA was
invalid because it did not specify the time and place of his initial removal hearing
is foreclosed by Popa v. Holder, 571 F.3d 890, 895-96 (9th Cir. 2009).
Neither Roa-Figueroa’s filing of an application for legal permanent
residence nor his receipt of advanced parole constitute admission “in any status”
for purposes of cancellation of removal. See Vasquez de Alcantar, 645 F.3d at
1103 (mere filing for legal permanent residence status does not constitute an

-- 2 of 3 --

08-73316 3
admission “in any status”); Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 590-91 & n.4
(9th Cir. 2005) (a parolee has neither been admitted nor made a lawful entry into
the United States).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --