NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 16 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE BRAVO-MARTINEZ, No. 15-73119
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-975-171
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jose Bravo-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of removal. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
*
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).
agency’s determination of continuous physical presence. Ibarra-Flores v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2006). We review de novo questions of law.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Bravo-Martinez did
not establish the required continuous physical presence and was therefore
ineligible for cancellation of removal, where the Form I-826, Notice of Rights and
Request for Disposition, indicates he accepted voluntary departure in 2011. See
Ibarra-Flores, 439 F.3d at 618 (voluntary departure interrupts physical presence).
The agency did not violate due process in considering the Form I-826, where
the form was probative to the issue of Bravo-Martinez’s continuous physical
presence, and where he had the opportunity to raise objections regarding the form
before the IJ. See Sanchez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[t]he
sole test for admission of evidence is whether the evidence is probative and its
admission is fundamentally fair” (citation omitted)); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must show
error and prejudice).
Bravo-Martinez’s contention that the Form I-826 did not properly put him
on notice that he was interrupting continuous physical presence by accepting
voluntary departure is unpersuasive. See Valadez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d
2 15-73119
1304, 1311 (9th Cir. 2010) (after accepting voluntary departure, alien can have no
legitimate expectation that he could illegally reenter and resume a period of
continuous physical presence).
Bravo-Martinez’s contention that the BIA misapplied Ibarra-Flores v.
Gonzales is not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-73119