NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEJANDRO PALACIOS RIVERA,

Petitioner,

v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 17

- 71448 Agency No. A095

- 692

- 140

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Alejandro Palacios Rivera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order pretermitting his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdicti on under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo legal

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 17 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 71448

questions, including constitutional claims , and review for substantial evidence factual findings

. Hernandez

- Mancilla v. Holder , 633 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir. 2011). We review for abuse of discretion the den ial of a continuance. Ahmed v.
Holder , 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review. The agency properly admitted the Form I

- 826 Notice of Rights and Request for Disposition, where it was probative and its admission fundamentally fa ir. See Sanchez v. Holder , 704 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th Cir. 2012). Palacios Rivera’s contentions do not overcome the presumption that the form is reliable, where , notwithstanding additional marks on the form, he admitted he signed the form and opted to take administrative voluntary departure. See Espinoza v. INS , 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995) (immigration forms are presumed to be reliable absent evidence to the contrary; “The burden of establishing a basis for exclusion of evidence from a government recor d falls on the opponent of the evidence, who must come forward with enough negative factors to persuade the court not to admit it.”). The agency did not abuse its discretion in de nying Palacios Rivera more than one week to review and respond to the Form I

- 826, where he had listed his
2005 administrative voluntary departure on his application for cancellation of removal, which h e filed roughly a year and a half prior to the continuance request.
See Ahmed , 569 F.3d at 1012 (listing factors to consider when r eviewing the denial3 17

- 71448

of a continuance , including the reasonableness of petitioner’s conduct ).
Therefore , substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
Palacios Rivera accepted administrative voluntary departure in 2005 and was th us unable to show 10 years of continuous physical presence to qualify for cancellation
of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Ibarra

- Flores v. Gonzales , 439 F.3d 614, 619 (9th Cir. 2006) ( voluntary departure under threat of deportation
constitutes a break in continuous physical presence ). Palacios Rivera’s contentions that he was coerced into accepting voluntary departure are not supported, where hi s
statement do es not indicate an immigration officer provided incorrect information
or forced him into h is choice. Cf. Ibarra

- Flores , 439 F.3 d at 619 (record did not
contain substantial evidence that the alien took voluntary departure where there was no documentary evidence and petitioner’s testimony indicated officers gave him incorrect and contradictory in formation regarding the consequences of accepting voluntary departure). The agency did not err or abuse its discretion in declining to hold a hearing or grant a continuance to explore Palacios Rivera ’s mental competency pursuant to Matter of M

- A

- M

- , 25 I. & N. Dec. 474 (BIA 2011), where the medical records he
submitted do not contain indicia of m ental incompetency

. Accordingly, the record does not support Palacios Rivera ’s contention s that he was deprived of his right to a full and fair hearing, or that the cumulative effect4 17

- 71448

of the agency ’s actions amounted to a violation of his due process rights. See Lata
v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (“ To prevail on a due process challenge to deportation proceedings, [petitioner] must show error and subst antial prejudice.” ).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.