Jaime Gomez-Santiago v. Jefferson Sessions

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 20, 2018
Docket16-70875
StatusUnpublished

This text of Jaime Gomez-Santiago v. Jefferson Sessions (Jaime Gomez-Santiago v. Jefferson Sessions) 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
Jaime Gomez-Santiago v. Jefferson Sessions, (9th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAIME GOMEZ-SANTIAGO, No. 16-70875

Petitioner, Agency No. A205-708-167

v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 13, 2018**

Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Jaime Gomez-Santiago, 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 cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). continuous physical presence determination. Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d

847, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for

review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gomez-

Santiago did not establish the requisite continuous physical presence for

cancellation of removal, where he testified that he remained outside the United

States for a period of more than 90 days during the statutory period, and no record

evidence compels a contrary conclusion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A), (d)(2) (a

departure in excess of 90 days breaks continuous physical presence).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Gomez-Santiago’s unexhausted contention

that he should have been granted a continuance. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688

F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

2 16-70875

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jaime Gomez-Santiago v. Jefferson Sessions, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jaime-gomez-santiago-v-jefferson-sessions-ca9-2018.