Case Name: Ada Cristina PEREZ-MELENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney-General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-24
Citations: 467 F. App'x 566
Docket Number: No. 10-73954
Parties: Ada Cristina PEREZ-MELENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney-General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 467
Pages: 566–567

Head Matter:
Ada Cristina PEREZ-MELENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney-General, Respondent.
No. 10-73954.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
Filed Jan. 24, 2012.
Roxana V. Muro, Law Offices of Roxana V. Muro, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips, Esquire, Trial, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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
Ada Cristina Perez-Melendez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision pretermitting her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence the agency's findings of fact, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005), we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that Perez-Melendez was statutorily barred from establishing good moral character under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(1), and therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal, based on Perez-Melendez's testimony that she had a drinking problem, had three convictions for driving under the influence that occurred while she was in removal proceedings, and had been mandated by the state to attend a rehabilita tion program. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(B).
In light of our disposition, we need not address Perez-Melendez's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.