N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
OLIVERIO OR TEGA-SOR IANO, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-73460 Age n c y No. A078-101-921
M EM O R 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 Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 21, 2015 * * B e fore : REINHAR

DT, LEAVY, a

nd B E R ZON, C irc uit Judge s. Olive rio Orte ga -Soriano, a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B o ard of Im

m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his a pplic at ion for c a

nc e lla tion of re m ova l. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e 

# FIL ED SEP 25 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).the a ge nc y ’ s c o ntinuous phy sic a l pre se n c e de te rm ination, Gutie rre z v . Muk ase y , 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th C ir. 2008), a nd re v i e w de novo que stions of la w, Mohamme d

v . Gonzale

s , 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t Orte ga -Soriano knowingly and volunta

rily a c c e p te d a dm i nistra

tive volunta

ry de pa rture in lie u of re m ova l proc e e dings whe re the a dm inistra tive volunta

ry de pa rture a gre e m e nt, Form

I-826, re fle c te d tha

t it wa s re a d to him

in Spa nish be fore he signe d it. Se e Gutie rre z , 521 F.3d a

t 1117-18 (re quiring some e vide nc e that the a lie n wa s inform e d of a nd a c c e pte d the te rm s of the volunta ry de pa rture
a gre e m e nt); c

f. Ibarra-Flore

s v . Gonzale

s , 439 F.3d 614, 619-20 (9th C ir. 2006) (insuffic ie nt e vide nc e tha t a lie n knowingly

an d volunta

rily a c c e pte d volunta

ry de pa rture whe re re c ord did not c onta in Form I-826 a nd pe t itione r’ s te stim ony sugge s te d tha

t he a c c e pte d re turn due to m isre pre se ntations by im m igration offic e rs). The a ge nc y t

he re fore prope rly

c onc l ude d tha

t, due to this volunta

ry de pa rture during there l e va

nt te n y e ar pe riod, Orte ga -Soriano did not me e t the
c ontinuous phy sic a l pre se n c e re quire m e nt for c anc e lla tion of re m ova l
. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Vasque z-Lope z v . Ashc roft , 343 F.3d 961, 974 (9th C ir. 2003) (pe r c uriam ).

1 3
- 7 3 4 6 0 2Orte ga -Soria no’ s c la im

tha t his right to due

proc e ss wa s viola

t e d by the
e ve nts le a ding to his 2002 de p arture is not supporte d by the re c o rd. Padilla-Martine

z v . Holde r, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th C ir. 2014) (“ To pre v a il on a due -proc e ss c la im , a

pe titione r m

ust de m onstra

t e both a viola

tion of rights a

nd pre j udic e .” ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 3
- 7 3 4 6 0 3