Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
FRANCISCO ANDRES GONZALEZ SANTOS, AKA Francisco Gonzalez Santos, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM*
Francisco Andres Gonzalez Santos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims, Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2004), and 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.
Gonzalez Santos' contention that the agency's allegedly inadequate translation at his hearing violated his due process rights is unavailing, where the record indicates Gonzalez Santos understood the questions posed to him during his hearing through the Spanish language interpreter and that he answered accordingly. See Perez-Lastor v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 773, 778 (9th Cir. 2000) (discussing types of evidence that indicate an inadequate translation).
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Gonzalez Santos failed to establish eligibility for cancellation of removal, where he testified that he entered the United States after the date from which he would have had to establish ten years of continuous physical presence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A).
We lack jurisdiction to review Gonzalez Santos' unexhausted contention that he was deprived of his right to counsel. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see also Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[Section] 1252(d)(1) mandates exhaustion and therefore generally bars us, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, from reaching the merits of a legal claim not presented in administrative proceedings below.”)
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 14-71864
Decided: June 01, 2016
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)