Case ID: f-appx_397/html/0345-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cesar Cuitlahuac GARCIA FUENTES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73204.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 27, 2010.
    Cesar Cuitlahuac Garcia Fuentes, San Jose, CA, pro se.
    John Blakeley, Senior Litigation Counsel, Carl Henry McIntyre, Jr., Assistant Director, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cesar Cuitlahuac Garcia Fuentes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009), and for substantial evidence the agency’s factual determinations, Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

We agree with the agency’s determination that Garcia Fuentes failed to establish the requisite ten years of continuous physical presence for cancellation of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A), (d)(1)(B), where a certified copy of the state sentencing and probation order established the fact of Garcia Fuentes’ convictions, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(B).

Garcia Fuentes’ equal protection claim is not persuasive. See Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir.2008).

Because the agency’s continuous physical presence determination is dispositive, we do not reach his remaining contentions.

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