Ciro Flores-Flores v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 441 F. App'x 418 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 29 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CIRO FLORES-FLORES, No. 09-73857
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-145-088
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Ciro Flores-Flores, 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
*
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).
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 Flores-Flores
did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement where the record
contains a Form I-826, Notice of Rights and Request for Disposition, which
indicates that Flores-Flores knowingly and voluntarily accepted voluntary
departure. 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 Form I-826 and petitioner’s testimony
suggested that he accepted return due to misrepresentations by immigration
officers).
Flores-Flores’ claim that the agency’s reliance on the Form I-826 violated
due process fails because Flores-Flores did not demonstrate prejudice. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due
process claim).
Flores-Flores’ remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-73857