Case Name: Edwin LOPEZ-MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-19
Citations: 709 F. App'x 476
Docket Number: No. 16-70642
Parties: Edwin LOPEZ-MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 709
Pages: 476–478

Head Matter:
Edwin LOPEZ-MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 16-70642
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted January 16, 2018
Filed January 19, 2018
Fermín Valencia, I, Esquire, Attorney, Valencia & Associates APC, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner
Jennifer A. Bowen, Trial Attorney, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Edwin Lopez-Mendez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's continuous physical presence determination, Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2008), and review de novo questions of law, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Lopez-Mendez failed to establish the requisite ten years of continuous physical presence for cancellation of removal, where the record contains a signed Form 1-826 and he has not shown that his acceptance of administrative voluntary departure in lieu of removal proceedings was not knowing and voluntary. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Gutierrez, 521 F.3d at 1117-18 (requiring some evidence that the alien was informed of and accepted the terms of the voluntary departure agreement). Lopez-Mendez's testimony does not compel a contrary conclusion, where he was given an opportunity to read the Form 1-826 before signing it and where he has not shown that the representations of immigration officials were inaccurate or misleading. Cf. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 619-20 (9th Cir. 2006) (insufficient evidence that alien knowingly and voluntarily accepted voluntary departure where record did not contain the voluntary departure form and alien's testimony suggested that he accepted return due to misrepresentations by immigration authorities).
Lopez-Mendez's related due process claim fails for lack of prejudice. See id. at 620-21.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.