Case ID: f-appx_279/html/0491-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carlos F. BASTIDAS BARRON, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-74979.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 20, 2008.
    
    Filed May 21, 2008.
    Charles E. Nichol, Esq., Law Office of Charles E. Nichol, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Regina Byrd, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos F. Bastidas Barron, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for suspension of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the IJ’s continuous physical presence determination for substantial evidence. Vera-Villegas v. INS, 330 F.3d 1222, 1230 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Bastidas Barron did not demonstrate seven years of continuous physical presence where the record contains a Notice and Request for Disposition form, printed in English and Spanish and signed by Bastidas Barron, stating that he was giving up his right to a hearing before an IJ and agreeing to return to Mexico. See Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 343 F.3d 961, 974 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam).

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