Case ID: f-appx_641/html/0770-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ignacio CONTRERAS-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-72019.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
    
    Filed March 1, 2016.
    
      Diana M. Bailey, Law Office of Diana M. Bailey, Portland, OR, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Yanal H. Yousef, Trial, 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: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ignacio Contreras-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination. Zarate v. Holder, 671 F.3d 1132, 1134 (9th Cir.2012). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Contreras-Hernandez did not demonstrate the ten years of continuous physical presence required for cancellation of removal, where Contreras-Hernandez provided insufficient testimonial evidence and no documentary evidence to corroborate his claimed entry date in 1997. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(l)(A), 1229a(e)(4)(B).

Contreras-Hernandez’s arguments regarding the IJ’s credibility determination are outside the scope of our review. See Owino v. Holder, 771 F.3d 527, 531 (9th Cir.2014) (“When the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and the law, this Court’s review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)).

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