Castillo v. Sessions, 071317 FED9, 13-74221
|Party Name:||NOEL ARCENIO SALDANA CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.|
|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|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted July 11, 2017 [**] Seattle, Washington
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A096-695-448
Before: TASHIMA and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and WALTER, [***] District Judge.
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. 644, 651 (B.I.A. 2011) ("[S]ervice of a notice to appear triggers the 'stop-time' rule, regardless of whether the date and time of the hearing have been included in the document."). His argument is now foreclosed by Moscoso-Castellanos v. Lynch, in which we deferred to Camarillo's construction of the statute. 803 F.3d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir. 2015).
2. Saldana contends that the Board erred by finding him ineligible for adjustment of status on the ground that he "falsely represented himself . . . to be a citizen of the United States, " 8 U.S.C. §...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP