Juan Sanchez Gonzales v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 29 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN CARLOS SANCHEZ No. 09-70701
GONZALES; NOELIA IBARRA
FREGOSO, Agency Nos. A079-289-729
A079-289-730
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Juan Carlos Sanchez Gonzales and Noelia Ibarra Fregoso, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
affirming an immigration judge’s denial of Ibarra Fregoso’s application for
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination,
Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Ibarra Fregoso
did not meet her burden of establishing continuous physical presence, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1)(A), because her testimony regarding the length of her absences from
the United States was materially inconsistent with her own and her witness’
testimony, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2) (departure in excess of 90 days or for any
periods in the aggregate exceeding 180 days breaks continuous physical presence),
and she failed to provide sufficient supporting documentation attesting to her
presence, cf. Vera-Villegas v. INS, 330 F.3d 1222, 1231-34 (9th Cir. 2003)
(inadequate documentary evidence does not bar application for relief where oral
and written testimony are otherwise sufficient).
In light of this disposition, petitioners’ request to remand this petition is
denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-70701