NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 14 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YOLANDA OLVERA-JUAREZ, No. 16-72716
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-811-033
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Yolanda Olvera-Juarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision pretermitting her application for cancellation
of removal. We have jurisdiction under to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination.
Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Olvera-Juarez
knowingly and voluntarily accepted administrative voluntary departure in lieu of
removal proceedings, and therefore she failed to establish the requisite ten years of
continuous physical presence for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §
1229b(b)(1)(A); Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzalez, 439 F.3d 614, 619 (9th Cir. 2006)
(voluntary departure under threat of deportation constitutes a break in continuous
physical presence); Gutierrez, 521 F.3d at 1117-18 (requiring some evidence that
the alien was informed of and accepted the terms of the voluntary departure
agreement). Olvera-Juarez’s testimony does not compel a contrary conclusion,
where she admits that she signed the Form I-826, and that she understood she was
waiving her right to present her case before an IJ. Cf. Ibarra-Flores, 439 F.3d at
619-20 (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 immigration authorities deceived him as to the
form’s purpose).
PETITON FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 16-72716