Jaime Gomez-Santiago v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAIME GOMEZ-SANTIAGO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70875
Agency No. A205-708-167
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Jaime Gomez-Santiago, 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. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
* 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
MAR 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-70875
continuous physical presence determination. Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d
847, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gomez-
Santiago did not establish the requisite continuous physical presence for
cancellation of removal, where he testified that he remained outside the United
States for a period of more than 90 days during the statutory period, and no record
evidence compels a contrary conclusion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A), (d)(2) (a
departure in excess of 90 days breaks continuous physical presence).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Gomez-Santiago’s unexhausted contention
that he should have been granted a continuance. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688
F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --