633 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2011), 06-73086, Hernandez-Mancilla v. Holder
|Citation:||633 F.3d 1182|
|Opinion Judge:||JONES, District Judge:|
|Party Name:||Anastacio HERNANDEZ-MANCILLA; Guadalupe Sierra-Guzman, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.|
|Attorney:||John Ayala, Law Office of Cobos & Ayala, Los Angeles, CA, for the petitioners-appellants. Patrick J. Glen, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for the respondent-appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON and MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judges, and ROBERT C. JONES [**]District Judge.|
|Case Date:||February 10, 2011|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Submitted Nov. 2, 2010.[*]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A75 758 626, A75 758 625.
Petitioners Anastacio Hernandez-Mancilla and Guadalupe Sierra-Guzman are Mexican nationals who entered the United States illegally on June 15, 1991. ( See Opening Br. 4). In February 2001, they engaged CB Immigration Services (" CB" ), who informed them they were eligible to apply for lawful permanent resident status. ( Id. 4-5). They paid CB approximately $5500, and CB submitted asylum applications on their behalf, resulting in the initiation of removal proceedings. ( Id. 5). They received a notice to appear dated May 3, 2001. ( Id. ). The Immigration Judge (" IJ" ) ruled that Petitioners were ineligible for cancellation of removal because they had not maintained continuous presence in the United States for a ten-year span as required by 8 U.S. C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A). ( See id. ). Petitioners appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (" BIA" ), which affirmed the IJ, ruling that the ten-year period under section 1229b could not be equitably tolled for the alleged fraud by CB, and that the statutory scheme permitting intermittent absences after a ten-year span but not providing a grace period to effectively reduce the ten-year requirement where there were no intermittent absences did not violate Petitioners' equal protection rights. ( See id. 6-7). Petitioners timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S. C. § 1252(b), and we affirm.
I. Standard of Review
When " the BIA conducts an independent review of the IJ's findings, we review the BIA's decision and not that of the IJ." Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1061 (9th Cir.2008). We review the BIA's factual findings under the deferential substantial-evidence standard and uphold them unless the evidence compels a contrary result, see Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir.2004), but we review purely legal questions de novo, see De Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, we review equal...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP