Maria Arroyo-Loeza v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 17 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA DE LOURDES ARROYO- No. 11-72881 LOEZA, Agency No. A077-410-341 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 15, 2013 ** Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Maria De Lourdes Arroyo-Loeza, 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 denying her application for cancellation of * 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). removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination, Ibarra–Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Arroyo-Loeza 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). We lack jurisdiction to review Arroyo-Loeza’s collateral attack on her expedited removal. Avendano-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 813, 818-19 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Valadez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1306 (9th Cir. 2010) (defining expedited removal as a “formal proceeding”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. 2 11-72881