NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HECTOR MANUEL-TORRES, No. 19-71935
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-717-682
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Hector Manuel-Torres, 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 his application for cancellation of
removal and denying his motion to terminate. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical
presence determination. Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir.
2008). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to terminate and
we review de novo questions of law. Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th
Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the determination that Manuel-Torres failed to
establish ten years of continuous physical presence for cancellation of removal,
where the record includes two signed Form I-826s indicating that he accepted
administrative voluntary departure in lieu of removal proceedings in 2008 and
2011. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614,
618 (9th Cir. 2006) (alien’s acceptance of administrative voluntary departure
interrupts the accrual of continuous physical presence); Gutierrez, 521 F.3d at
1117-18 (requiring some evidence that alien was informed of and accepted the
terms of the voluntary departure agreement). Even assuming Manuel-Torres’s
testimony to be credible, his testimony does not compel a contrary conclusion. 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 he accepted return
due to misrepresentations by immigration authorities).
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Manuel-Torres’s motion
2 19-71935
to terminate where his contention that the agency lacked jurisdiction over his
proceedings under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) is foreclosed by
Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 889, 895 n.4 (9th Cir. 2020).
As stated in the court’s September 18, 2019 order, the temporary stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 19-71935