Mario Fajardo Espinoza v. William Barr

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedApril 14, 2020
Docket15-72059
StatusUnpublished

This text of Mario Fajardo Espinoza v. William Barr (Mario Fajardo Espinoza v. William Barr) 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
Mario Fajardo Espinoza v. William Barr, (9th Cir. 2020).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 14 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIO A. FAJARDO ESPINOZA, No. 15-72059

Petitioner, Agency No. A095-502-118

v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted April 7, 2020**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Mario A. Fajardo Espinoza, 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. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Bonilla

v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review.

* 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). The agency did not err in denying cancellation of removal, where Fajardo

Espinoza cannot show seven years of continuous residence after having been

admitted in any status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2); Vasquez de Alcantar v.

Holder, 645 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2011) (“we have never held that mere filing

for LPR status constitutes admission”). Fajardo Espinoza’s contention that his

acceptance into the Family Unity Program should be considered an admission for

cancellation purposes is foreclosed by Medina-Nunez v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 1103,

1105 (9th Cir. 2015).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 15-72059

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

Related

Vasquez De Alcantar v. Holder
645 F.3d 1097 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Jose Medina-Nunez v. Loretta E. Lynch
788 F.3d 1103 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
MacArio Bonilla v. Loretta E. Lynch
840 F.3d 575 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Mario Fajardo Espinoza v. William Barr, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mario-fajardo-espinoza-v-william-barr-ca9-2020.