GARCIA GONZALEZ V. GONZALES, No. 06-75327 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 23 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GABRIEL GARCIA GONZALEZ, Petitioner, No. 06-75327 Agency No. A079-538-337 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 17, 2012 ** Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Gabriel Garcia Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se 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 * 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). the agency s continuous physical presence determination, Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2004), 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 conclusion that Garcia Gonzalez did not meet his burden of establishing continuous physical presence because Garcia Gonzalez repeatedly testified that he did not enter the United States until 1997, four years before his Notice to Appear was issued. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A). Garcia Gonzalez s equal protection challenge regarding the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act is foreclosed by our decision in Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir. 2002). Gonzalez s remaining contentions are not supported by the record. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 06-75327

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.