Jose Rodriguez-Garcia v. Jefferson Sessions

Ninth Circuit

Jose Rodriguez-Garcia v. Jefferson Sessions

687 F. App'x 578

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 18, 2017

Docket15-73106

StatusUnpublished

This text of 687 F. App'x 578 (Jose Rodriguez-Garcia 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

Jose Rodriguez-Garcia v. Jefferson Sessions, 687 F. App'x 578 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Rodriguez-Garcia, 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, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s determination of continuous physical presence, Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rodriguez-Garcia was outside of the United States for a period of more than 90 days during the statutory period and thus failed to establish the requisite continuous physical presence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A), (d)(2) (a departure in excess of 90 days breaks continuous physical presence). Even assuming equitable estoppel could apply, he has not shown affirmative misconduct by United States immigration officials. See Salgado-Diaz v. Gonzales, 395 F.3d 1158, 1165 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The government in immigration cases may be subject to equitable estoppel if it has engaged in affirmative misconduct.”).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rodriguez-Garcia failed to establish that he could not reasonably relocate within Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2)-(3).

Rodriguez-Garcia has waived any challenge to the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Rodriguez-Garcia’s contentions regarding membership in a particular social group.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Rodriguez-Garcia, 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, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s determination of continuous physical presence, Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rodriguez-Garcia was outside of the United States for a period of more than 90 days during the statutory period and thus failed to establish the requisite continuous physical presence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A), (d)(2) (a departure in excess of 90 days breaks continuous physical presence). Even assuming equitable estoppel could apply, he has not shown affirmative misconduct by United States immigration officials. See Salgado-Diaz v. Gonzales, 395 F.3d 1158, 1165 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The government in immigration cases may be subject to equitable estoppel if it has engaged in affirmative misconduct.”).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rodriguez-Garcia failed to establish that he could not reasonably relocate within Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2)-(3).

Rodriguez-Garcia has waived any challenge to the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Rodriguez-Garcia’s contentions regarding membership in a particular social group.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

687 F. App'x 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-rodriguez-garcia-v-jefferson-sessions-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack