Elisned Corro-Barragan v. Eric H. Holder Jr., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11674

Corro-Barragan is a Mexican citizen with three U.S. citizen children in Napa, California.
She entered the U.S. in 1991 and has resided largely continuously aside from brief Mexico trips.
On January 6, 2006, Corro arrived without inspection and was served a Notice to Appear.
In 2007, Corro filed for cancellation of removal and separately sought voluntary departure.
The IJ denied both cancellation and voluntary departure; the BIA affirmed, denying relief.
The issue presented is whether § 1229c(b)(1)(A)’s ‘physically present’ requirement for voluntary departure entails uninterrupted one-year presence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ‘physically present’ requires uninterrupted one-year presence.	Corro argues interruptions during the year should count.	Hol der argues no interruptions are allowed under § 1229c(b).	Uninterrupted one-year presence is required.

Medina Tovar v. United States Att’y Gen., 646 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2011) (one-year presence not fully satisfied by breaks in presence)
Gil v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2011) (restores jurisdiction over questions of law in § 1229c challenges)
Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2007) (Real ID Act restores jurisdiction for constitutional claims or questions of law)
Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (1983) (legislative drafting: disparate inclusion/exclusion implies intentional action)
Taniguchi v. Schultz, 303 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2002) (relevance of government-proffered rationales in statutory interpretation)
INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183 (1984) (absence during seven-year pre-IIRIRA period precluded suspension of deportation)
Desir v. Ilchert, 840 F.2d 723 (9th Cir. 1988) (historical context of removal/exclusion processes)
Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449 (1963) (presence-related jurisprudence in departure/entry)