Case ID: f-appx_475/html/0678-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Omar Manuel MONARREZ GUERRERO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-70704.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 8, 2012.
    
    Filed Aug. 14, 2012.
    Omar Manuel Monarrez Guerrero, Beaumont, CA, pro se.
    Lauren Fascett, OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Omar Manuel Monarrez Guerrero, 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 his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Gu tierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Monarrez Guerrero failed to establish the requisite ten years of continuous physical presence for cancellation of removal where he repeatedly testified that he first entered the United States on December 12, 1997, and he was served with a Notice to Appear less than ten years later. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A). Monarrez Guerrero’s contention that he continued to accrue presence until his final hearing before the IJ is unavailing. See id. § 1229b(d)(l)(A) (period of continuous physical presence ends upon service of Notice to Appear).

We need not address Monarrez Guerrero’s contentions concerning the remaining requirements for cancellation of removal.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.