Maria D. Bucio Escobedo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 D. BUCIO ESCOBEDO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73582
Agency No. A095-175-863
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Maria D. Bucio Escobedo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s denial of her application for cancellation of removal. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
FILED
JUL 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 08-73582
Escobedo’s contention that the Board’s summary affirmance of the
immigration judge’s decision violated her due process rights is foreclosed by
Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849-52 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s determination that
Escobedo did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement, because her
testimony established that she left the United States for more than 90 days from
1998 to 1999, thereby interrupting the accrual of continuous physical presence in
the United States. See Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 2008)
(acknowledging that service of the notice to appear halts the accrual of continuous
physical presence). Because Escobedo’s inability to establish physical presence
was dispositive, any evidence supporting the other elements of cancellation would
not have changed the outcome of the proceedings.
We deny Escobedo’s request for remand to the Board for the Office of the
Chief Counsel to consider prosecutorial discretion and administrative closure. We
express no opinion as to Escobedo’s entitlement to either form of relief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --