JAIME ESTUPINAN-DE LA HOYA V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 13-72377 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 17 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAIME ESTUPINAN-DE LA HOYA, AKA Jaime Estupian De La Hoya, No. 13-72377 Agency No. A077-305-146 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals March 10, 2015** Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Jaime Estupinan-De La Hoya, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying 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 factual findings, Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review. The record does not compel reversal of the agency’s determination that Estupinan-De La Hoya failed to establish continuous physical presence in the United States for a period of not less than ten years as required for cancellation of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A), where he received voluntary return following an arrest by the State Department and testified that he spent four to six hours in custody of the Department of Homeland Security during which time immigration officials probably told him that he would be put in removal proceedings, see Zarate v. Holder, 671 F.3d 1132, 1135-1138 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that the evidence required to show a formal documented process sufficient to terminate an alien’s continuous physical presence will vary from case to case, and describing circumstances that constitute a formal documented process in which voluntary return may interrupt continuous physical presence). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 13-72377

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.