From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zaragoza-Castaneda v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 15, 2005
142 F. App'x 991 (9th Cir. 2005)

Opinion

Submitted September 12, 2005.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Page 992.

Edgardo Quintanilla, Esq., Attorney at Law, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioners.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., John L. Davis, DOJ--U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.


On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Before REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Jose Apolinar Zaragoza-Castaneda, Maria Isabel Zaragoza, and Dennys Jose Angel Zaragoza-Garcia, all natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of their motion to reconsider the BIA's decision affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") pretermission of their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

Petitioners contend that their period of continuous physical presence should not have ended until their notices to appear were filed with the immigration court. The BIA, however, correctly deemed the petitioners' period of continuous physical presence to have ended when petitioners were served with their notices to appear. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)(A) (period ends "when the alien is served a notice to appear"); Lagandaon v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 983, 989 (9th Cir.2004) ("We conclude that the period of continuous presence ends on the day the Notice is served.").

Petitioners failed to raise a colorable due process claim. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Zaragoza-Castaneda v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 15, 2005
142 F. App'x 991 (9th Cir. 2005)
Case details for

Zaragoza-Castaneda v. Gonzales

Case Details

Full title:Jose Apolinar ZARAGOZA-CASTANEDA; Maria Isabel Zaragoza; Dennys Jose Angel…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 15, 2005

Citations

142 F. App'x 991 (9th Cir. 2005)