ISMAEL RUIZ-SOLIS V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-71539 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ISMAEL RUIZ-SOLIS, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-71539 Agency No. A089-926-419 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Ismael Ruiz-Solis, 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 cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s determinations * 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). of credibility and continuous physical presence. Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 2011); Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Singh, 643 F.3d at 1180 (court must uphold agency’s credibility finding unless evidence compels a contrary result). Absent credible testimony or other evidence to the contrary, the agency properly relied on the signed Form I826, Notice of Rights and Request for Disposition, as evidence that Ruiz-Solis’s acceptance of voluntary departure in 2009 was knowing and voluntary. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995) (“information on an authenticated immigration form is presumed to be reliable in the absence of evidence to the contrary presented by the alien”). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that RuizSolis did not establish the required continuous physical presence and was therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); IbarraFlores, 439 F.3d at 618 (voluntary departure interrupts physical presence). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-71539
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.
