Rodriguez Rodriguez v. Holder

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 18 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN MANUEL RODRIGUEZ No. 07-71727 RODRIGUEZ, Agency No. A074-811-313 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 11, 2011 San Francisco, California Before: FERNANDEZ and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and WELLS, Senior District Judge.** Juan Manuel Rodriguez Rodriguez (Rodriguez) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ruling affirming the decision of an Immigration * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Lesley Wells, Senior District Judge for the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. Judge (IJ) that Rodriguez failed to meet the continuous physical presence requirement to qualify for cancellation of removal. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the notice to appear (NTA) was properly served on Rodriguez in 1998 by mailing it to his last known address, in Los Angeles. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1), the NTA may be served upon the alien or the alien’s representative. There was substantial evidence in the record to establish that the NTA was mailed to the address provided by Rodriguez’s representative. In turn, service of the NTA halted the accrual of time counted toward the ten-year continuous physical presence requirement for cancellation of removal. See Lagandaon v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 983, 988 (9th Cir. 2004). PETITION DENIED. 2