Case ID: f-appx_505/html/0649-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maria De Lourdes ARROYO-LOEZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72881.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Jan. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 17, 2013.
    John Martin Pope, Pope & Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Glen T. Jaeger, Oil, 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: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria De Lourdes Arroyo-Loeza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination, Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir.2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Arroyo-Loeza failed to establish the ten years of continuous physical presence required for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A); Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 511 (9th Cir.2007) (expedited removal interrupts an alien’s continuous physical presence for cancellation purposes).

We lack jurisdiction to review Arroyo-Loeza’s collateral attack on her expedited removal. Avendano-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 813, 818-19 (9th Cir.2004); see also Valadez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1306 (9th Cir.2010) (defining expedited removal as a “formal proceeding”).

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