Barron v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Barron v. Mukasey

279 F. App'x 491

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 21, 2008

DocketNo. 04-74979

StatusPublished

This text of 279 F. App'x 491 (Barron v. Mukasey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barron v. Mukasey, 279 F. App'x 491 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Carlos F. Bastidas Barron, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for suspension of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the IJ’s continuous physical presence determination for substantial evidence. Vera-Villegas v. INS, 330 F.3d 1222, 1230 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Bastidas Barron did not demonstrate seven years of continuous physical presence where the record contains a Notice and Request for Disposition form, printed in English and Spanish and signed by Bastidas Barron, stating that he was giving up his right to a hearing before an IJ and agreeing to return to Mexico. See Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 343 F.3d 961, 974 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Carlos F. Bastidas Barron, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for suspension of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the IJ’s continuous physical presence determination for substantial evidence. Vera-Villegas v. INS, 330 F.3d 1222, 1230 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Bastidas Barron did not demonstrate seven years of continuous physical presence where the record contains a Notice and Request for Disposition form, printed in English and Spanish and signed by Bastidas Barron, stating that he was giving up his right to a hearing before an IJ and agreeing to return to Mexico. See Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 343 F.3d 961, 974 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 F. App'x 491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barron-v-mukasey-ca9-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack