ARMANDO AGUILAR-VIGIL, Armando Aguilar v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMANDO AGUILAR-VIGIL, Armando
Aguilar,
Petitioner,
v.
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70077
Agency No. A072-999-184
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Armando Aguilar-Vigil, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of cancellation of removal. We have
* 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
JAN 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-70077
jurisdiction under 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 review de novo questions of law. Ahmed v.
Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Aguilar-
Vigil’s acceptance of administrative voluntary departure in 2007 was knowing and
voluntary, and he was therefore unable to show ten years of continuous physical
presence for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Serrano
Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 2008) (sufficient evidence
of knowing and voluntary consent to voluntary departure, where alien testified he
was given a choice to see an IJ, but chose to depart because it would be “faster,”
and alleged no misrepresentations by immigration officials); cf. Ibarra-Flores, 439
F.3d at 619 (petitioner’s testimony indicated officers gave him incorrect and
contradictory information regarding the consequences of accepting voluntary
departure).
We are not persuaded by Aguilar-Vigil’s contentions that the agency did not
analyze the facts in accordance with relevant BIA precedent and made its decision
on an insufficient record, where the record contained Aguilar-Vigil’s testimony
and a Form I-826, Notice of Rights and Request for Disposition. See Matter of
Castrejon-Colino, 26 I. & N. Dec. 667, 672 n.5 (BIA 2015) (Form I-826 is an

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-70077
example of evidence of the formality of the voluntary return process); Matter of
Garcia-Ramirez, 26 I. & N. Dec. 674, 677 (BIA 2015) (record unclear where it
contained no testimony, and documentary evidence did not provide information
regarding whether the alien was fingerprinted or put through other formalities).
We are not persuaded by Aguilar-Vigil’s contention that the BIA did not
sufficiently address his contentions regarding the immigration officer’s statements.
See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“What is required is
merely that [the BIA] consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms
sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and
not merely reacted.” (citation omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --