Case Name: Maria Luisa LOPEZ-GUERRA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-29
Citations: 305 F. App'x 416
Docket Number: No. 06-73929
Parties: Maria Luisa LOPEZ-GUERRA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 305
Pages: 416–416

Head Matter:
Maria Luisa LOPEZ-GUERRA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73929.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
Filed Dec. 29, 2008.
David Neumeister, Esquire, Bakersfield, CA, Petitioner.
Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, Jennifer L. Lightbody, Esquire, OIL, DOJ — 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: GOODWIN, RYMER, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Maria Luisa Lopez-Guerra, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency's continuous physical presence determination for substantial evidence. Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Lopez-Guerra met her burden to establish continuous physical presence where she failed to provide sufficient supporting documentation or witnesses attesting to her presence prior to 1993. 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") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir: R. 36-3.