Case Name: Alejandra Mendoza RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-24
Citations: 366 F. App'x 850
Docket Number: No. 07-74483
Parties: Alejandra Mendoza RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 366
Pages: 850–851

Head Matter:
Alejandra Mendoza RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74483.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed Feb. 24, 2010.
Michelle Gonzalez, Esquire, Michelle Gonzalez, Inc., Huntington Park, CA, for Petitioner.
Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Alejandra Mendoza Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") order 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 factual findings, Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061,1065 (9th Cir.2003), and review de novo constitutional claims, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Mendoza Ramirez failed to establish the ten years of continuous physical presence required for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2) (departure in excess of ninety days breaks continuous physical presence).
The record does not support Mendoza Ramirez's contention that the IJ's manner of questioning her violated due process. See Melkonian, 320 F.3d at 1072.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.