Jaime Gomez-Santiago v. Jefferson Sessions
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.
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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
Jaime Gomez-Santiago v. Jefferson Sessions, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jaime-gomez-santiago-v-jefferson-sessions-ca9-2018.