Case ID: f-appx_362/html/0696-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sofia Simona BRACAMONTE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-73489.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 19, 2010.
    Sofia Simona Bracamonte, San Diego, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Joan E. Smiley, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sofia Simona Bracamonte, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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, Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Bracamonte did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement where she testified that she departed the United States for Mexico in 1996 for over nine months. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2) (departure in excess of ninety days breaks continuous physical presence).

Bracamonte’s contention that the BIA improperly denied her motion to file a late brief is unavailing.

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