NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CESAREO MARTINEZ, No. 17-71113
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-624-438
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Cesareo 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 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 factual findings. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010).
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the determination that Martinez failed to
establish ten years of continuous physical presence for cancellation of removal,
where the record includes a signed Form I-826 in Spanish indicating that he
accepted administrative voluntary departure in lieu of removal proceedings in
2005. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1117-
18 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring some evidence that alien was informed of and
accepted the terms of the voluntary departure agreement). Martinez’s testimony
does not compel a contrary conclusion, where he did not dispute that he signed the
Form I-826 after being given an opportunity to read its contents, nor allege that
immigration officials misrepresented the Form I-826 to him. Cf. Ibarra-Flores v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 619-20 (9th Cir. 2006) (insufficient evidence that alien
knowingly and voluntarily accepted voluntary departure where record did not
contain the voluntary departure form and alien’s testimony suggested that he
accepted return due to misrepresentations by immigration authorities).
We do not reach Martinez’s contentions regarding hardship because the BIA
did not rely on this ground. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 17-71113