Case ID: f-appx_387/html/0803-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Martha Magdalena MIRANDA MENDEZ; Veronica Athalia Vazquez Miranda, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70194.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 16, 2010.
    Brian David Lerner, Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner, Long Beach, CA, for Petitioners.
    
      OIL, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Martha Magdalena Miranda Mendez and Veronica Athalia Vazquez Miranda, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Miranda Mendez did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement where her testimony and application indicated that she departed the United States for Mexico in October 1994 and that she remained there for a period greater than 90 days. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2) (departure in excess of 90 days breaks continuous physical presence).

The agency did not err in denying cancellation relief to Vazquez Miranda where she did not demonstrate that she had a qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l).

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