Maria De Lourdes Arroyo- Loeza 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARIA DE LOURDES ARROYO-
LOEZA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72881
Agency No. A077-410-341
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2013**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Maria De Lourdes Arroyo-Loeza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for cancellation of
FILED
JAN 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72881 2
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination,
Ibarra–Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Arroyo-Loeza
failed to establish the ten years of continuous physical presence required for
cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Juarez-Ramos v.
Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 511 (9th Cir. 2007) (expedited removal interrupts an
alien’s continuous physical presence for cancellation purposes).
We lack jurisdiction to review Arroyo-Loeza’s collateral attack on her
expedited removal. Avendano-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 813, 818-19 (9th Cir.
2004); see also Valadez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1306 (9th Cir. 2010)
(defining expedited removal as a “formal proceeding”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --