693 Fed.Appx. 647 (9th Cir. 2017), 13-74221, Castillo v. Sessions

Docket Nº:13-74221
Citation:693 Fed.Appx. 647
Party Name:NOEL ARCENIO SALDANA CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Attorney:For NOEL ARCENIO SALDANA CASTILLO, Petitioner: Vicky Dobrin, Esquire, Hilary Han, Attorney, Dobrin & Han, PC, Seattle, WA. For JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent: Nancy Ellen Friedman, Trial Attorney, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litig...
Judge Panel:Before: TASHIMA and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and WALTER,[***] District Judge.
Case Date:July 13, 2017
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 647

693 Fed.Appx. 647 (9th Cir. 2017)

NOEL ARCENIO SALDANA CASTILLO, Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent

No. 13-74221

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

July 13, 2017

Submitted Seattle, Washington July 11, 2017 [**]

Editorial Note:

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A096-695-448.

For NOEL ARCENIO SALDANA CASTILLO, Petitioner: Vicky Dobrin, Esquire, Hilary Han, Attorney, Dobrin & Han, PC, Seattle, WA.

For JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent: Nancy Ellen Friedman, Trial Attorney, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC; Chief Counsel ICE, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA.

Before: TASHIMA and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and WALTER,[***] District Judge.

Page 648

MEMORANDUM[*]

Noel Saldana, a native and citizen of Panama, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing legal questions de novo and the agency's factual findings for substantial evidence, see

Blanco v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 714, 718 (9th Cir. 2008), we deny the petition.

1. Saldana contends that he accrued 10 years of continuous physical presence in the United States prior to service of a notice to appear--and thus is eligible for cancellation of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A), (d)(1)--because his notice did not contain the date and time of his hearing and he did not learn this information until after the 10-year period had passed. Saldana argues that we are bound by our decision in Garcia-Ramirez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 935, 937 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (holding that notices to appear lacking hearing information do not stop petitioner's accrual of physical presence), rather than the Board's later decision in In re Camarillo, 25 I. & N. Dec...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP