Case ID: f-appx_351/html/0219-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maria Guadalupe BRACAMONTES-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72877.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 13, 2009.
    
    Filed Nov. 2, 2009.
    Maria Guadalupe Bracamontes-Hernan-dez, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
    Daniel Eric Goldman, Esq., Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Jason X. Hamilton, Jem C. Sponzo, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-Distriet Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Guadalupe Bracamontes-Hernan-dez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

Braeamontes-Hernandez fails to raise and therefore waives any challenge to the IJ’s dispositive determination that she failed to establish the requisite continuous physical presence. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996). We therefore do not consider Bracamontes-Hernandez’s contentions regarding hardship. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A).

This court’s review is limited to the administrative record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A).

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