Case ID: f-appx_445/html/0977-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pablo DOMINGUEZ-SALMERON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-73540.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 2, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 5, 2011.
    William J. Baker, Moreno & Associates, Chula Vista, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Nehal Kamani, OIL, Carlton Frederick Sheffield, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pablo Dominguez-Salmeron, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination, Vera-Villegas v. INS, 330 F.3d 1222, 1230 (9th Cir.2003), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Dominguez-Salmeron’s contention that the IJ failed to make an explicit adverse credibility determination because Dominguez-Sal-meron did not exhaust this contention before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s continuous physical presence determination because the record does not compel the conclusion that Dominguez-Salmeron was present in the United States from January 15, 1992 to January 15, 2002. See Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.2000) (a contrary result is not compelled “when it is possible to draw two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence”).

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