Eleazar Reyes-Rojas v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELEAZAR REYES-ROJAS,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70123
Agency No. A087-747-633
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.
Eleazar Reyes-Rojas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
FILED
MAR 04 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 3 --

evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination, Gutierrez v.
Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2008), and review de novo questions of
law, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Reyes-Rojas
knowingly and voluntarily accepted administrative voluntary departure in 2008 in
lieu of removal proceedings where he admitted to reviewing and signing the
administrative voluntary departure agreement, Form I-826, and where Reyes-Rojas
did not allege overt misrepresentation or intimidation by immigration officers. See
Gutierrez, 521 F.3d at 1117-18 (requiring some evidence that the alien was
informed of and accepted the terms of the voluntary departure agreement); cf.
Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 619-20 (9th Cir. 2006) (no substantial
evidence that alien knowingly and voluntarily accepted voluntary departure where
record did not contain Form I-826 and petitioner’s testimony suggested that he
accepted return due to misrepresentations by immigration officers). The agency
therefore properly concluded that, due to this voluntary departure during the
relevant ten-year period, Reyes-Rojas did not meet the continuous physical
presence requirement for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A);
Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 343 F.3d 961, 974 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam).
14-70123 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Reyes-Rojas’s request for remand to the IJ based on the settlement
agreement in Lopez-Venegas v. Johnson, No. 2:13-cv-03972 (C.D. Cal., filed
March 11, 2015) is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
14-70123 3

-- 3 of 3 --