Rangel v. Ashcroft
This text of 73 F. App'x 284 (Rangel v. Ashcroft) 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
MEMORANDUM
Ricardo Carbajal Rangel, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. We deny the petition.
We have jurisdiction to review the denial of Rangel’s application for cancellation of removal because it involves the purely legal determination of whether an applicant has shown ten years of continuous physical presence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252; Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir.2002); Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997).
Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Rangel was ineligible for cancellation of removal because he failed to meet the ten-year continuous residence requirement. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A); Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 315 F.3d 1201, 1203 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
73 F. App'x 284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rangel-v-ashcroft-ca9-2003.