UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
JOSE M ANZANAR

EZ-SANTOS, Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-70148 Age n c y No. A088-807-738
ORDER

B e fore : WALLAC E , TASHIM A, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. The re sponde nt’ s m otion to a m e nd is GR

ANTED. The m e m orandum disposition file d on Nove m be r 14, 2017, is a

m e nde d a s follows: At pa ge four, line s 2–3, c ha nge < on re m and the im

m igration judgesha ll
c onside r whe the r> to < we re m and to the B IA with instruc tions to re m a nd to the im m igration judgeto de te rm ine whe the r> . Following a

m e ndm e nt, the m andate sha ll issueforthwith. 

# FIL ED JAN 11 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALSN O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JOSE M ANZANAR

EZ-SANTOS, Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-70148 Age n c y No. A088-807-738
AM ENDED M EM OR

ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a n d Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 12, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E , TASHIM A, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. 1. The B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) e rre d in de ny ing Jose M an z a na re z -Sa ntos’ a

pplic a tion for c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l. An a lie n’ s a c c e pta n c e of volunta

ry de pa rture bre aks his c ontinuous phy sic a l pre se nc e only if the d e c ision to de

pa rt wa s knowing a

nd volunta

ry . Se e Ibarra-Flore

s v . Gonzale

s , 

# FIL ED JAN 11 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Pa ge 2 of 5

439 F.3d 614, 619 (9th C ir. 2006). Eve n if one re fuse s to c re dit M a n z an are z Santos’ te stim o ny

tha t he wa s c oe rc e d into depa rting, a s the B IA did, the re c ord
none the l e ss “ m

ust c onta i n som e e vide nc e tha t the a lie n wa s informe d of and
ac c e pte d ” the te rm s of volunta

ry de pa rture . Id. (e m

pha sis in origina

l ) (c ita tion
om i tte d). The re is no suc h e vide nc e in this c a se . He re , a s in Ibarra-Flore s , the gove rnm e nt wa s not a

ble to produc e a

signe d volunta

ry de pa rture form
. Se eid
. Nor is the re any

othe r e vide nc e indic a ting tha t M anz ana

re z -Sa n tos wa s a dvise d of the c onse que nc e s of volunta ry de pa rture or tha

t he a c c e pte d volunta

ry de p arture in lie u of be ing pla c e d in re m ova l proc e e dings. The gove rnm e n t’ s re lia

nc e on nota

tions from

the Uta h sta te c ourt’ s re c ord of
c onvic tion is m

ispla c e d
. At m ost, the se ba re nota tions a re e vide nc e tha

t M an z a na re z -Sa ntos kne w he would be re m ove d from the Unite d Sta te s through
som e unspe c ifie d proc e ss, a n d tha t he c ould not re e nte r unla wfully . B ut the y

are not substa ntia l e v i de nc e tha

t M anz a n are z -Santos wa s inform e d of a nd a c c e pte d volunta ry de pa rture . Inde e d, the nota

tions m ake no re fe re nc e to volunta ry de pa rture a t a ll. Zarate v . Holde r , 671 F.3d 1132 (9th C i r. 2012), on whic h the disse nt re lie s, is distinguisha

ble . The re , a

n a lie n wa s a

rre ste d for posse ssing a

fa lse ide ntific a tion doc um e nt whe n e nte ring the Unite d State s. Id . at 1133. He wa s c onvic t e d inPa ge 3 of 5

fe de ra l c o urt a

nd re t urne d to M e xic o. W e he ld the se proc e e dings brokethe a lie n’ s c ontinuous phy sic a l pre se n c e be c a use the c onvic t ion “ w a s a form a l, doc um e nte d proc e s s tha

t wa s the func tiona l e quiva le nt of a n a d judic a tion of ina dm issibility .” Id . at 1136 (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). W hile M an z ana

re z -Sa ntos wa s subje c t to a form a l proc e e ding in sta

te c ourt be fore his re turn to M e xic o, tha t proc e e ding wa s not “ the func tiona l e quiva le nt of
an a d judic a tion of ina dm issibility .” Id . In Zarate , the c ourt e m p ha siz e d tha

t the de fe nda n t ple a de d guilty

to a n offe nse tha

t “ dire c tly re lat[e d] to his a tte m pte d
re e n try .” Id . at

1137. The re solution of the c rim ina l c ha

rge e ffe c t ive ly

re solve d the q ue stion of a dm i ssibility

a s we ll. Not so here . The offe nse to whic h M an z a na re z -Sa ntos ple a d e d guilty , m aking a fa lse c re dit re port, is unre lat e d to his im m igration sta

t us or the c irc um sta

nc e s of his e ntry

into theUnite d State s. And
e ve n if the Uta

h c ourt proc e e d ing did purport to de te rm ine M anz ana

re z -Santos’ le ga l sta tus, it c ould not c onstitute an a djudic a tion of ina d

m issibility . Unlike in Zarate , the proc e e ding he re wa s be fore a state c ourt, not a

fe de ra l c ourt. It is we ll
se ttle d tha

t sta te e ntitie s “ e njoy no powe r with re spe c t to the c la ssific a tion of
a lie ns.” Ply le r v . Doe , 457 U.S. 202, 225 (1982). Ac c ordingly , Ibarra-Flore s , not Zarate , guide s this c ourt’ s a na ly sis.Pa ge 4 of 5

B e c a use it is undispute d tha

t M a n z a na re z -Sa ntos othe rwise satisfie s the
c ontinuous phy sic a l pre se n c e re quire m e nt, we re m and to the B IA with instruc tions to re m a nd to the im

m igration judgeto de te rm ine whe the r M anz ana re z -Sa ntos
m e e ts the re m a ining re quire m e nts to be e l igible for c anc e l lation of re m ova l unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(b). 2. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t a prote c te d ground is not one

c e ntra l re a son for M an z ana re z -Sa ntos’ fe are d pe rse c u tion. A
m otive is a

c e ntra l re a son if tha

t re a son, “ sta

nding a lone ,” would le a d the pe rse c utor to ha

rm the a pplic ant. Parussimov

a v . Muk ase y , 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th C ir. 2009). W

hile the Los Ze ta s c arte l ta rge te d m e m

be rs of M a

nz a n are z -Sa ntos’ fa m ily in M e xic o, the c arte l’ s c e ntra l m o tive a ppe ars to ha

ve be e n de s ire for
m one y . C arte l m e m

b e rs kidna

p pe d M anz ana

re z -Sa n tos’ a

unt, a ppa re n tly a t
random , a nd de m ande d a

ransom . And whe n the c arte l m e m be rs ta rge te d othe r
m e m b e rs of the fa m ily , the y

c ontinue d

to de m and tha

t the ransom

be pa id. Abse n t this fina nc ia l m otive , the re is no e vide n c e that the c arte l would ha ve kidna ppe d a nd kille d m e m

be rs of M anz ana

re z -Santos’ fa m i ly . Those fina nc ia l m otive s do not be ar the re quisite ne xus to a prote c te d ground. Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1015–16 (9th C ir. 2010).Pa ge 5 of 5

Sinc e the B IA prope rly

de nie d M anz ana

re z -Sa ntos’ a sy lum

a pplic a tion for fa ilure to e sta

blish ne xus, we ne e d not a ddre ss whe t he r the a pplic at ion wa s tim e ly file d
. 3. The B IA de nie d M anz ana re z -Sa ntos’ a

pplic ation for withholding of
re m ova l unde r the inc orre c t le ga l sta nda rd. Asy l um

a pplic ants m

ust de m onstra

te that a prote c t e d ground is “ one c e ntra l re a son” for the ir pe rse c ution, but a pplic ants for withholding of rem ova l ne e d only show tha t a prote c t e d ground is “ a

re a son” for the ir pe rse c ution. Barajas-Rome ro v . Ly nc h , 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th C ir. 2017). The “ a

re a son” sta

nda rd is “ le ss de m anding.” Id . B e c a use the B IA
e rrone ously

c onside re d M a

n z an are z -Sa ntos’ withholding a pplic at ion unde r the

“ one c e ntra l re a son” sta

nda rd, w e re m and for re c o nside ra tion unde r the c o rre c t sta nda rd. PE T IT IO N G RANT E D IN PART ; DE NIE D IN PART ; and RE M A NDE D
.Manzanare

z-Santos v . Se

ssions , No. 15-70148 W ALLAC E , C irc uit Judge , disse nting in pa rt: I c onc ur in pa

rts 2 a nd 3 of the disposition but disse nt from pa rt 1. To be e ligible for c anc e lla tion of re m o va l, a

n a pplic ant m

ust e sta b lish a t le a st te n y e ars c ontinuous phy sic a l pre se nc e in the Unite d State s im m e d iat e ly pre c e ding the date of a

p plic a tion. 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(b)(1)(A). Our c a se la w provide s se ve ra l wa

y s in whic h this pe riod of c ontinuous phy s ic a l pre se nc e m ay be inte rrupte d, one of whic h is whe n the proc e s s c ulm inating in a n a lie n’ s de p arture is

“ suffic ie ntly

form a l” to c onstitute

a bre ak in c ontinuous phy sic a l pre se nc e . Zarate
v . Holde r , 671 F.3d 1132, 1138 (9th C ir. 2012). B e c a use I c onc lude tha

t M an z a na re z -Sa ntos’ c onvic tion in sta te c ourt a nd subse que nt de pa

rture wa s a suffic i e ntly

form a l proc e ss to te rm inate his c ontinuous phy sic a l pre se nc e , I
re spe c tfully

disse nt from

pa rt 1 of the m a

jority ’ s disposition. M y disa gre e m e nt with the

m a jority is, a

t root, a disa gre e m e nt ove r the prope r fram e of an a ly sis. The m a jority tre a ts this c a se a s a

“ volunta ry de pa rture ”
c a se c ontrolle d by our de c ision in Ibarra-Flore s v . Gonzale

s , 439 F.3d 614 (9th C ir. 2008). In Ibarra-Flore s , pe titione r a

ppe a le d from

an im m igration judge ’ s (IJ) de te rm i nation tha

t he a c c e pte d “ a d

m inistra t ive volunta

ry de pa rture ” suffic ie nt to inte rrupt his c ontinuous phy sic a l pre se nc e by signing a n unide ntifie d

doc um e nt. W e he l d this c o nc lusion wa s not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e be c a

use the 

# FIL ED JAN 11 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALSre c o rd c onta ine d no indic a tion pe titione r ha d “ knowingly and volunta

rily ”
c onse n te d to the te rm s of a volunta ry de pa rture a gre e m e nt. Id. a t 620. W e re m ande d to the IJ with instruc tions to ta ke a dditiona l e vide nc e and te stim ony a s to whe the r pe titione r knowingly and volunta

rily c o nse nte d to volunta

ry de pa rture . Id. The insta n t a ppe a l is not a

n Ibarra-Flore

s ty pe c a se . Inste a d , the issue pre s e nte d he re is whe the r substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA) de te rm ination tha t the proc e ss le a ding to M anz ana re z -Sa ntos’ de pa rture wa s suffic ie ntly form a l to bre ak his c ontinuous phy sic a l pre se n c e . Tha t
m ake s this c a se m ore a kin to Zarate v . Holde r , 671 F.3d 1132 (9th C ir. 2012), tha n to Ibarra-Flore

s . It is Zarate

tha t should guide

our a na ly sis. In Zarate , pe titione r argue d tha t the proc e s s c ulm inating in his de p arture from the Unite d State s wa s not the sort of form a l, doc um e nte d proc e ss tha t bre aks
c ontinuous phy sic a l pre se n c e . Id. a t 1135. W e disa gre e d. The pe titione r in Zarate ha d be e n a

rre ste d while a tte m

pting to re e nte r the Unite d Stat e s a nd wa s c onvic te d in fe de ra l distric t c ourt of posse ssion of a fa lse ide n t ific a tion doc um e nt. Id. a t 1133. The pe t i tione r’ s se nte nc e wa s c onditione d , in pa rt, on the e xpe c tation tha

t im m igration a

uthoritie s would “ c a

use the de fe n da

nt to le a v e ” the c ountry . Id. Pe titione r the n se rve d five da y s in ja il, wa s re turne d to INS c ustody , a nd wa s the n transporte d ba c k to the M e x ic an borde r and re le a se d. W e he l d this se que nc e of 2e ve nts provide d substa ntia l e v ide nc e for the B o ard’ s de t e rm i nation tha t pe t itione r’ s de pa rture wa s “ suffic ie ntly

form a l” to c onstitute

a bre ak in his c ontinuous phy sic a l pre s e nc e . Id. a t 1138. I would hold the

sa m e in this c a se . He re , M anz ana re z -Sa n t os (who wa s re pre se nte d by

c ounse l ) ple a de d

guilty in Uta h sta te c o urt to filing a

fa lse c re dit
re port. Although the

offe nse wa s not a

n im m igrat ion offe nse , M anz ana re z -Santos’ im m igration sta

t us wa s ve ry

m uc h inte rtwine d

with his c onvic tion a

n d se nte nc ing. For e xam ple , M anz ana

re z -San tos sta

te d he wa s a

ware a t the tim e of his a

ppe aranc e be fore the sta

te judge tha

t INS ha d a

n im m igration de ta ine r on him . In a ddition, whe n the judge se nte nc e d M anz ana re z -Sa ntos, he spe c ific a lly took into a c c ount M an z a na re z -Sa ntos’ antic i pat e d re m o va l by fe de ra l im

m igrat ion a

uthoritie s. Furthe rm ore , the c onditions of M anz ana re z -Sa n tos’ probation provide d tha t he wa s

“ not [to] e nte r the Unite d State s without le ga l a uthoriz a tion.” Fina l ly , a fte r se rving his tim e in ja il, M anz ana

re z -Sa n tos wa s turne d ove r to the INS, a c c e pte d volunta ry de pa rture , a nd re turne d to M e xic o. In m y vie w , this se que nc e of e ve nts wa s suffic i e ntly

form a l to c onstitute

a bre ak in M anz ana

re z -Santos’ c ontinuous phy sic a l pre se n c e . Vie wing this c a se through thele ns of Zarate re n d e rs be side the point the
m a jority ’ s c onc lusion tha

t M anz ana

re z -Sa ntos did not knowingly an d volunta

rily 3a c c e pt volunta ry de pa rture . Inde e d, in Zarate

we re je c te d this pre c ise argum e nt by pe titione r, e xpla i ning tha

t the issue in the c a s e wa s not whe the r pe t itione r de pa rte d volunta rily but whe the r “ t

he proc e e d ings tha

t did oc c ur we re suffic ie n t to te rm inate his c ontinuous phy sic a l pre se n c e .” Zarate , 671 F.3d a t 1137, n.5. Suc h is the c a se he re . The B oa

rd c onc lude d tha

t the se que nc e of e ve n ts le a ding to M an z a na re z -Sa ntos’ de pa

rture wa s “ a

suffic ie ntly

doc um e nte d a

nd form a l iz e d proc e s s” tha

t inte rrupte d his c ontinuous phy sic a l pre se nc e . The re c ord doe s not
c om pe l a c ontra ry c onc lusion. The m a jority argue s tha

t Zarate is ina

pposite be c a

use the re we c o nc lude d that pe titione r’ s c onvic t ion in fe de ra l c ourt a nd subse q ue n t de pa rture wa s the

“ func tiona l e quiva le nt of a n a djudic a tion of ina dm issibility .” Id. a t 1136 (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). It is true tha t a n im p lic it finding of ina

dm issibility form e d pa

rt of our ra

tiona l e in Zarate . B ut I do not re a d Zarate to re quire the B oa rd to m a k e a

finding of ina dm issibility be fore c onc luding tha

t a proc e ss re sulting in a

n a lie n’ s de pa

rture wa s suffic i e ntly form a l to te rm inate c ontinuous phy sic a l pre se n c e . Nor did Zarate hold tha t only proc e e d ings in fe de ra l c ourt m e e t the re quisite le ve l of form a l ity . Inste a d, wha t Zarate re quire s is a holistic , c onte xtse nsitive inquiry

into thede gre e of form a l ity of the proc e ss. Although a n a djudic a tion of ina dm issibility will c e rta inly

sugge st suffic ie n t form a lity , Zarate 4doe s not re quire it. He re , the proc e ss c ulm i nating in M a n z a n are z -Sa ntos’ de pa rture

— whic h did not inc lude an a djudic a tion of ina d m issibility

but did inc lude
a ja il a nd proba tion se nte nc e c o nditione d in pa rt on M anz ana

re z -Sa n tos’ im m igration sta

t us— w a s “ form a l none the le ss,” Id. a t 1136 (c ita t ion om itte d), a

nd the re fore suffic ie nt to bre a k his c ontinuous phy sic a l pre s e nc e . To be sure , the re are diffe re nc e s be twe e n Zarate and the insta n t c a s e . For
one thing, thepe titione r in Zarate wa s a rre s te d while a tte m

pting to re e nte r the Unite d State s without le ga l a

uthoriz a tion, while

he re pe titione r’ s a

rre st a nd
c onvic tion in sta

te c ourt did not ste

m dire c tly from viola tion of theim

m igration la ws. For a nothe r, in Zarate , the e vide nc e of re c o rd inc lude d a R e c ord of De porta b le /Ina dm issible Alie n (Form I-213) sta

t ing tha t the pe titione r fa lse l y c la im e d US c itiz e nship, while he re the re c ord c onta i ns no suc h offic ia l im m igration doc um e n tation. The se diffe re nc e s, howe v e r, do not c ha n ge m y c o nc l usion tha

t M an z a na re z -Sa ntos’ de pa

rture wa s “ suffic ie ntly

form a l to c onstitute

a bre ak in his othe rwise c ontinuous phy s ic a l pre se nc e .” Zarate , 671 F.3d a t 1138 (a lte ration a

nd
c ita tion om itte d ). As we a c knowle dge d in Zarate , the e vide nc e re quire d to show a suffic i e ntly

form a l de pa

rture “ will va

ry from c a se to c a se .” Id. a t

1135. He re , M an z a na re z -Sa ntos re turne d to M e xic o subse que nt to a sta te c ourt c onvic t ion a

nd 5se nte nc ing proc e ss tha t wa s inte rtwine d with the issue of his im m igration sta

tus. On this re c ord, I would hold the B oa rd ha d substa

ntia l e vide nc e to c onc lude M an z a na re z -Sa ntos’ de pa

rture wa s suffic i e ntly form a l to bre ak his c o ntinuous phy sic a l pre se n c e . The re fore , I re spe c tfully disse nt from pa rt 1 of the m a

jority ’ s disposition.

6