Juan Sanchez Gonzales, et al v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-70701 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MAR 29 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN CARLOS SANCHEZ GONZALES; NOELIA IBARRA FREGOSO, No. 09-70701 Agency Nos. A079-289-729 A079-289-730 Petitioners, MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 8, 2011 ** Before: FARRIS, O SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Juan Carlos Sanchez Gonzales and Noelia Ibarra Fregoso, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order affirming an immigration judge s denial of Ibarra Fregoso s application for * 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). cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency s continuous physical presence determination, Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency s conclusion that Ibarra Fregoso did not meet her burden of establishing continuous physical presence, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A), because her testimony regarding the length of her absences from the United States was materially inconsistent with her own and her witness testimony, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2) (departure in excess of 90 days or for any periods in the aggregate exceeding 180 days breaks continuous physical presence), and she failed to provide sufficient supporting documentation attesting to her presence, cf. Vera-Villegas v. INS, 330 F.3d 1222, 1231-34 (9th Cir. 2003) (inadequate documentary evidence does not bar application for relief where oral and written testimony are otherwise sufficient). In light of this disposition, petitioners request to remand this petition is denied. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 09-70701

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.