Case Name: Raul GONZALEZ VARGAS; Graciela M. Gonzalez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-13
Citations: 387 F. App'x 719
Docket Number: No. 08-70115
Parties: Raul GONZALEZ VARGAS; Graciela M. Gonzalez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 387
Pages: 719–719

Head Matter:
Raul GONZALEZ VARGAS; Graciela M. Gonzalez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70115.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 13, 2010.
William E. Rowen, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Kristin K. Edison, Daniel E. Goldman, 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: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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
Raul Gonzalez Vargas and Graciela M. Gonzalez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's order pretermitting their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence the agency's continuous physical presence determination, Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850 (9th Cir.2004), we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Gonzalez Vargas met his burden to establish continuous physical presence where he provided insufficient evidence of his presence from April 1988 onwards. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1999) (a contrary result is not compelled where there is "[t]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.