FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 19 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE HERNANDEZ-ZARRAGA, No. 13-71262
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-458-949
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Hernandez-Zarraga, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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’s continuous physical presence determination, and we review de novo
due process claims. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618, 620 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Hernandez-
Zarraga failed to establish the ten years of continuous physical presence required
for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Juarez-Ramos v.
Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 511 (9th Cir. 2007) (expedited removal interrupts an
alien’s continuous physical presence for cancellation purposes).
Hernandez-Zarraga claims that he was denied due process when a Spanish
language interpreter was not provided in his expedited removal proceedings. This
claim is without merit where the record shows that the communication between
Hernandez-Zarraga and the immigration officer who provided the necessary notice
and advisals and conducted the expedited removal proceedings was in Spanish,
Hernandez-Zarraga signed a form affirmatively stating that he understood his
rights, and the text of the interview does not suggest that he had any difficulty
understanding the immigration officer. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-71262