Case ID: f-appx_299/html/0673-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Justina SORIANO-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70512.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
    
    Filed Nov. 4, 2008.
    Justina Soriano-Garcia, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, Stacy S. Paddack, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Justina Soriano-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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, 851 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Soriano-Garcia did not meet her burden to establish continuous physical presence where she failed to provide adequate supporting documentation attesting to her presence in the United States prior to 1997. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A); cf. Lopez-Alvarado, 381 F.3d at 854.

Soriano-Garcia’s contentions that the agency violated her due process rights by disregarding her physical presence evidence as well as her arguments on appeal are not supported by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.