Gomez v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Gomez v. Gonzales

225 F. App'x 535

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 15, 2007

DocketNo. 05-76033

StatusPublished

This text of 225 F. App'x 535 (Gomez v. Gonzales) 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

Gomez v. Gonzales, 225 F. App'x 535 (9th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Juan Jose Agustín Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s physical presence determination for substantial evidence, Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ’s determination that Agustin Gomez did not establish his continuous physical presence in the United States beginning January 1993 is supported by substantial evidence. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (noting that “[t]o reverse the BIA finding we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it”).

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

**

Juan Jose Agustín Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s physical presence determination for substantial evidence, Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ’s determination that Agustin Gomez did not establish his continuous physical presence in the United States beginning January 1993 is supported by substantial evidence. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (noting that “[t]o reverse the BIA finding we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it”).

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)

225 F. App'x 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gomez-v-gonzales-ca9-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack