# Delfino Vasquez-Lopez v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · September 11, 2003 · 343 F.3d 961

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9496401

## Case

- **Full name:** Delfino VASQUEZ-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 11, 2003
- **Citations:** 343 F.3d 961; 2003 Daily Journal DAR 10421; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 18871
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Berzon, Stapleton, O'Scannlain, Fernandez, Pregerson, Thomas, Graber, Wardlaw, Fisher, Paez
- **Cited by:** 138 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9496401

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a departure under the threat of coerced deportation was properly regarded as a break in the continuum of the alien’s physical presence for purposes of cancellation of removal
- holding that a grant of voluntary departure "occasioned a break in [the alien’s] ‘continuous physical presence’ ” under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, just as an order of deportation would
- holding that Mr. Vasquez-Lopez was not eligible for cancellation of removal because voluntary departure created a break in his continuous physical presence
- holding that an alien who elects to voluntarily depart to avoid removal proceedings does not continue to accrue “presence” in the United States
- finding that “an alien who commits to departure in order to avoid deportation proceedings is not entitled to continue accruing presence”

## Opinion text

ORDER
The opinion filed on January 13, 2003, is ordered amended. The Clerk is instructed to file the amended opinion. Judge Ber-zon’s dissent from the order denying rehearing en banc shall also be filed.
The panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge O’Scannlain has voted to deny the petition *963 for rehearing en banc, and Judge Staple-ton and Judge Fernandez so recommended.
The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and an active judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonre-cused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R.App. P. 35.
The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for panel or en banc rehearing will be entertained.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9496401. Public record. Not legal advice.