JOEL DIAZ-ARANGO V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-72544 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 30 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS JOEL DIAZ-ARANGO, No. 13-72544 Petitioner, Agency No. A079-149-303 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 22, 2015** Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Joel Diaz-Arango, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the * 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). agency’s continuous physical presence determination. Serrano Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that DiazArango’s voluntary return to Mexico interrupted his period of continuous physical presence, where Diaz-Arango does not dispute that he signed a voluntary return form that stated that was giving up the right to a hearing before an immigration judge, the record shows that this form was read to him in Spanish, and DiazArango testified that he relied on an attorney’s advice in accepting voluntary return to Mexico. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 619-20 (9th Cir. 2006) (in order to interrupt the accumulation of continuous physical presence, the decision to accept voluntary return in lieu of a hearing before an immigration judge must be knowing and voluntary). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 13-72544
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.
