Ignacio Contreras-Hernandez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IGNACIO CONTRERAS-HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72019
Agency No. A088-994-359
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Ignacio Contreras-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
FILED
MAR 01 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination. Zarate v.
Holder, 671 F.3d 1132, 1134 (9th Cir. 2012). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Contreras-
Hernandez did not demonstrate the ten years of continuous physical presence
required for cancellation of removal, where Contreras-Hernandez provided
insufficient testimonial evidence and no documentary evidence to corroborate his
claimed entry date in 1997. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(1)(A), 1229a(c)(4)(B).
Contreras-Hernandez’s arguments regarding the IJ’s credibility
determination are outside the scope of our review. See Owino v. Holder, 771 F.3d
527, 531 (9th Cir. 2014) (“When the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence
and the law, this Court’s review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the
extent the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” (quotation marks and citation
omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
14-72019 2

-- 2 of 2 --