Ciro Flores-Flores v. Eric Holder, Jr.

441 F. App'x 418
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJune 29, 2011
Docket09-73857
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 441 F. App'x 418 (Ciro Flores-Flores v. Eric Holder, Jr.) 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
Ciro Flores-Flores v. Eric Holder, Jr., 441 F. App'x 418 (9th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Ciro Flores-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 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 Flores-Flores did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement where the record contains a Form 1-826, Notice of Rights and Request for Disposition, which indicates that Flores-Flores knowingly and voluntarily accepted voluntary departure. 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 Form 1-826 and petitioner’s testimony suggested that he accepted return due to misrepresentations by immigration officers).

Flores-Flores’ claim that the agency’s reliance on the Form 1-826 violated due process fails because Flores-Flores did not demonstrate prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

Flores-Flores’ remaining contentions are unavailing.

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

Related

Rosario-Mijangos v. Holder
717 F.3d 269 (Second Circuit, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
441 F. App'x 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ciro-flores-flores-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2011.