Alejandro Brito-Osorio v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEJANDRO BRITO-OSORIO,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-72314
Agency No. A205-054-231
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Alejandro Brito-Osorio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, and review de novo questions of law. Najmabadi v.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-72314
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the determination that Brito-Osorio failed to
establish ten years of continuous physical presence for cancellation of removal,
where the record includes a signed Form I-826 indicating that he accepted
administrative voluntary departure in lieu of removal proceedings in 2011. See 8
U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 343 F.3d 961, 974 (9th Cir.
2003) (alien’s acceptance of administrative voluntary departure interrupts the
accrual of continuous physical presence); Serrano Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d
1114, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring some evidence that alien was informed of
and accepted the terms of the voluntary departure agreement). Neither Brito-
Osorio’s testimony nor his counsel’s speculation about the immigration officer’s
oral translation of the Form I-826 compel a contrary conclusion. See Kohli v.
Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1068 (9th Cir. 2007) (“In the absence of clear evidence
to the contrary, courts presume that public officers properly discharge their
duties[.]”); cf. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 619-20 (9th Cir. 2006)
(insufficient evidence that alien knowingly and voluntarily accepted voluntary
departure where record did not contain the voluntary departure form and alien’s
testimony suggested that he accepted return due to misrepresentations by
immigration authorities).
Brito-Osorio’s due process claim therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-72314
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due
process challenge).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --