Case ID: f-appx_678/html/0549-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Julio Cesar BARAHONA-VALLECILLO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-72525
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 23, 2017
    Joseph D. Hardy, Jr., Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, Timothy Bo Stanton, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Julio Cesar Barahona-Vallecillo, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the. Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s 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 continuous physical presence determination. Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Barahona-Vallecillo failed to establish the requisite continuous physical presence for cancellation of removal, where he presented inconsistent testimony with no corroboration regarding the length of his absences from the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(4)(B) (petitioner bears the burden of showing eligibility); § 1229b(b)(l)(A) (ten years continuous physical presence required); § 1229b(d)(2) (continuous physical presence broken by departure of more than 90 days).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.