Artemio Mateo-Gonzalez v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTEMIO MATEO-GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70387
Agency No. A206-676-876
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Artemio Mateo-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying cancellation of removal. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
* 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 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-70387
agency’s determination that an alien did not establish ten years of continuous
physical presence in the United States. Zarate v. Holder, 671 F.3d 1132, 1134 (9th
Cir. 2012). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mateo-
Gonzalez did not establish the ten years of continuous physical presence required
for cancellation of removal, where he did not provide sufficient evidence to meet
his burden of proof. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(1)(A), 1229a(c)(4)(A)(i).
Mateo-Gonzalez’s contention that the agency ignored evidence is not
supported. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (alien
must overcome presumption that BIA did review all evidence where the BIA
plainly stated it reviewed the record). His contention that the BIA did not conduct a
meaningful analysis is also not supported. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983,
990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“What is required is merely that [the BIA] consider the issues
raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to
perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” (citation omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --