Uribe

Uribe v. Mukasey

Good Law
279 F. App'x 529
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 22, 2008No. 06-70358California354 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Armando Ramirez Uribe and Maria Elena Soto Tirador, married natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review the agency’s continuous physical presence determination for substantial evidence. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir.2006). We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001) . We grant in part and deny in part the petition for review and remand.

An intervening change in the law requires us to remand on the issue of continuous physical presence. In Ibarra-Flores , we held that administrative voluntary departure under threat of deportation breaks the accrual of continuous physical presence only where the alien is informed of the terms of the departure and knowingly and voluntarily accepts them. See 439 F.3d at 619 ; see also Tapia v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 997, 1004 (9th Cir.2005). There is no indication in the record that petitioners were…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.