Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

deportationnaturalization
deportationnaturalization

Related Cases

Lovan v. Holder
View Case »
Marincas v. Lewis
View Case »
Beltran-Leon v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Germain v. United States AG
View Case »
Taveras, Matter of
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Landin-Zavala v. Gonzales

Facts

Petitioner first came to the United States in August 1990 and was apprehended by the Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS), who allowed him to return to Mexico voluntarily. He reentered the U.S. multiple times and was eventually deported in June 1996. After his deportation, he illegally reentered the U.S. and remained undiscovered until removal proceedings commenced against him in February 2002. He applied for cancellation of removal, but the IJ found that his physical presence was interrupted by his deportation and voluntary departure.

Petitioner first came to the United States in August 1990 and was apprehended by the Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS), who allowed him to return to Mexico voluntarily. He reentered the U.S. multiple times and was eventually deported in June 1996.

Issue

Did the petitioner accrue the requisite 10 years of continuous physical presence in the United States for purposes of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. 1229b(b)?

Did the petitioner accrue the requisite 10 years of continuous physical presence in the United States for purposes of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. 1229b(b)?

Rule

An alien's continuous physical presence is deemed to end when he is deported from the United States or when he is compelled to depart the United States under threat of removal proceedings.

An alien's continuous physical presence is deemed to end when he is deported from the United States or when he is compelled to depart the United States under threat of removal proceedings.

Analysis

The court found that the IJ's determination that petitioner's physical presence was interrupted was supported by substantial evidence. The court noted that the formal exclusion order and subsequent deportation clearly ended petitioner's continuous physical presence. The court distinguished this case from others where brief departures did not interrupt physical presence, emphasizing that the formal exclusion proceedings were significant.

The court found that the IJ's determination that petitioner's physical presence was interrupted was supported by substantial evidence. The court noted that the formal exclusion order and subsequent deportation clearly ended petitioner's continuous physical presence.

Conclusion

The court denied the petition for review, affirming the Board's decision that petitioner did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement.

The court denied the petition for review, affirming the Board's decision that petitioner did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court found substantial evidence supporting the denial of petitioner's application for cancellation of removal.

The government prevailed in the case because the court found substantial evidence supporting the denial of petitioner's application for cancellation of removal.

You must be