Case ID: f-appx_382/html/0649-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daniel MEDINA-LANDEI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70641.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 9, 2010.
    Tamiko O. Moore, Law Office of Tamiko O. Moore, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Sada Manickam, Esq. DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit. Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Daniel Medina-Landei, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for suspension of deportation. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s continuous physical presence determination for substantial evidence, Ca-nales-Vargas v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 739, 742 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Medina-Landei met his burden to establish continuous physical presence where he failed to provide sufficient evidence supporting his presence from December 1989 to April 1990. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1999) (a contrary result is not compelled where there is “[t]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

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