NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARMANDO AGUILAR-VIGIL, Armando 

Aguilar, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting 

Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-70077 

Agency No. A072-999-184 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 15, 2019**

Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Armando Aguilar-Vigil, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from 

an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of cancellation of removal. We have 

 

* 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

JAN 17 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-70077 

jurisdiction under 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 review de novo questions of law. Ahmed v. 

Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that AguilarVigil’s acceptance of administrative voluntary departure in 2007 was knowing and 

voluntary, and he was therefore unable to show ten years of continuous physical 

presence for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Serrano 

Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 2008) (sufficient evidence 

of knowing and voluntary consent to voluntary departure, where alien testified he 

was given a choice to see an IJ, but chose to depart because it would be “faster,”

and alleged no misrepresentations by immigration officials); cf. Ibarra-Flores, 439 

F.3d at 619 (petitioner’s testimony indicated officers gave him incorrect and 

contradictory information regarding the consequences of accepting voluntary 

departure).

We are not persuaded by Aguilar-Vigil’s contentions that the agency did not 

analyze the facts in accordance with relevant BIA precedent and made its decision 

on an insufficient record, where the record contained Aguilar-Vigil’s testimony 

and a Form I-826, Notice of Rights and Request for Disposition. See Matter of 

Castrejon-Colino, 26 I. & N. Dec. 667, 672 n.5 (BIA 2015) (Form I-826 is an 
3 17-70077 

example of evidence of the formality of the voluntary return process); Matter of 

Garcia-Ramirez, 26 I. & N. Dec. 674, 677 (BIA 2015) (record unclear where it

contained no testimony, and documentary evidence did not provide information 

regarding whether the alien was fingerprinted or put through other formalities). 

We are not persuaded by Aguilar-Vigil’s contention that the BIA did not 

sufficiently address his contentions regarding the immigration officer’s statements. 

See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“What is required is 

merely that [the BIA] consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms 

sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and 

not merely reacted.” (citation omitted)). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.