Case ID: f-appx_427/html/0597-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Juan Manuel RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71727.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted April 11, 2011.
    Filed April 18, 2011.
    Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Joseph John Siguenza, Esquire, Law Offices of Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.
    David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, OIL, Colette Jabes Winston, Esquire, 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: FERNANDEZ and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and WELLS, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Lesley Wells, Senior District Judge for the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Manuel Rodriguez Rodriguez (Rodriguez) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ruling affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) that Rodriguez failed to meet the continuous physical presence requirement to qualify for cancellation of removal.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the notice to appear (NTA) was properly served on Rodriguez in 1998 by mailing it to his last known address, in Los Angeles. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1), the NTA may be served upon the alien or the alien’s representative. There was substantial evidence in the record to establish that the NTA was mailed to the address provided by Rodriguez’s representative. In turn, service of the NTA halted the accrual of time counted toward the ten-year continuous physical presence requirement for cancellation of removal. See Lagandaon v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 983, 988 (9th Cir.2004).

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