Rogelio Oros-Lucas, a.k.a. Rogelio Oros v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROGELIO OROS-LUCAS, a.k.a. Rogelio
Oros,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71860
Agency No. A095-761-633
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 16, 2014 **
Before: GOULD, BERZON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Rogelio Oros-Lucas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order that dismissed his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of
removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
APR 23 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination,
Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Oros-Lucas
did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement. Oros-Lucas testified
that he accepted voluntary departure instead of appearing before an IJ during the
relevant statutory time period. See id. at 1117–18 (petitioner’s testimony that he
had the opportunity to appear before an IJ but chose to depart instead is sufficient
to establish presence-breaking voluntary departure).
The BIA did not address whether Oros-Lucas accepted voluntary departure
on the basis of misrepresentations made to him concerning the effect on him of
such departure. See Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614,619–20 (9th Cir.
2006). The misrepresentation issue was not, however, exhausted before the
agency, so we may not address it.
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Oros-Lucas’ remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --