Case ID: f-appx_205/html/0504-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Agustín Murillo CASILLAS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-70031.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 6, 2006.
    
    Filed Nov. 9, 2006.
    Samuel Ogbu, Esq., Dozie Ike Ezeife, Emeziem & Ogbu, LLP, Emeryville, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, M. Jocelyn Wright, Esq., Larry P. Cote, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Agustín Murillo Casillas, 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 cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency properly found that Casillas failed to offer any witnesses or tax or employment documents to support his claim that he was continuously present in the United States between July 1991 and late 1992. See Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir.2000) (“[I]f the trier of fact either does not believe the applicant or does not know what to believe, the applicant’s failure to corroborate his testimony can be fatal to his asylum application.”). Substantial evidence therefore supports the BIA’s conclusion that Casillas failed to establish the requisite period of continuous physical presence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.