RAMON MAGANA-ALMONTE, AKA Ramon Magana v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAMON MAGANA-ALMONTE, AKA
Ramon Magana,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73493
Agency No. A205-117-468
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Ramon Magana-Almonte, 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 cancellation of removal. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 12 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-73493
agency’s factual findings, and review de novo constitutional claims. Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Magana-
Almonte failed to establish the requisite ten years of continuous physical presence
for cancellation of removal, where the record includes a signed Form I-826 in
Spanish indicating that he accepted administrative voluntary departure in lieu of
removal proceedings in 2012, and he testified that an immigration officer allowed
him to choose between signing the Form I-826 or fighting his case while detained.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Serrano Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114,
1117-18 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring some evidence that 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) (insufficient evidence that alien
knowingly and voluntarily accepted voluntary departure where record did not
contain the voluntary departure form and alien’s testimony suggested that he
accepted return due to misrepresentations by immigration authorities).
The record does not support Magana-Almonte’s contention that the IJ
violated due process. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (due
process claims require showing that proceedings were so fundamentally unfair that
the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his case); Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-73493
process challenge).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --