United States v. 2020-02-06 | 18-72625 | PEDRO TRUJILLO-RODRIGUEZ V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PEDRO TRUJILLO-RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 18-72625

Agency No. A205-054-215

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 4, 2020
**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Pedro Trujillo-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.

*
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

FEB 6 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 18-72625
2008). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Trujillo-
Rodriguez cannot establish the requisite ten years of continuous physical presence
for cancellation of removal, where a signed Form I-826 from 2011 indicates that he
accepted voluntary return in lieu of appearing before an immigration judge. See
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1117-18 (9th
Cir. 2008) (a voluntary departure breaks continuous physical presence, but the
record must contain some evidence that the alien was informed of and accepted the
terms of the voluntary departure agreement).
Trujillo-Rodriguez’s contention that his acceptance of voluntary return was
not knowing and voluntary is not supported by the record. See Valadez-Munoz v.
Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1312 (9th Cir. 2010) (voluntary departure was accepted
“knowingly and voluntarily” where applicant chose voluntary departure and signed
document expressly waiving his right to appear before an immigration judge).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.