NOT FOR PUBLICATION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, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 70077

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C . § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determi nation

. 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.
S ubstantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Aguilar

Vigil ’s accept ance 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 alie n testified he was given a choice to see an IJ , but chose to depart because it would be “faster,” and alleged no misrepres e ntations by immigration officia ls ) ; 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 an3 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 documentar y 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.