IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60683

Summary Calendar

JORGE LUIS CONTRERAS-ARRIZON,

Petitioner

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A087 681 015

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and GRAVES and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jorge Luis Contreras-Arrizon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 

this court for review of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(BIA) of his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying relief in 

the form of cancellation of removal based on a finding that he was ineligible for 

such relief. The BIA determined that Contreras-Arrizon did not meet his 

burden of establishing 10 years of continuous physical presence in the United 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 7, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60683 Document: 00514632652 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/07/2018
No. 17-60683

2

States in light of his 2007 voluntary departure to Mexico in lieu of deportation. 

Contreras-Arrizon argues that he never knowingly signed a document to accept 

voluntary departure. He contends that, while he did sign a document, he 

thought it was a document related to retrieving his personal belongings. 

This court generally reviews only the order of the BIA and will consider 

the underlying decision of the IJ to the extent that it influenced the BIA’s 

decision. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). To establish 

eligibility for cancellation of removal, Contreras-Arrizon has the burden of 

establishing, among other things, continuous physical presence in the United 

States for the 10-year period immediately preceding the date of the application 

for cancellation of removal. See Ramos-Torres v. Holder, 637 F.3d 544, 548 

(5th Cir. 2011); 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); 8 C.F.R § 1240.64(a). An alien’s 

deportation or voluntary departure under threat of immigration proceedings 

interrupts the 10-year continuous physical presence period. Mireles-Valdez v. 

Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213, 217-19 (5th Cir. 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.64(b)(3). 

Whether an alien has been continually present for a period of not less than 10

years is a factual determination reviewed under the substantial evidence 

standard. Garcia-Melendez v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 657, 661 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Under the substantial evidence standard, reversal is improper unless this 

court decides “not only that the evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but 

also that the evidence compels it.” Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th 

Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(b)(4)(B). “The applicant has the burden of showing that the evidence is 

so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” 

Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134.

Nothing in Contreras-Arrizon’s brief or in the record compels a finding 

that he did not knowingly and voluntarily accept voluntary departure in lieu 

 Case: 17-60683 Document: 00514632652 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/07/2018
No. 17-60683

3

of deportation. His assertions to the contrary were not so compelling that no 

reasonable fact-finder could conclude that the 10-year presence requirement 

was interrupted. See Garcia-Melendez, 351 F.3d at 661.

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 17-60683 Document: 00514632652 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/07/2018