Case Name: Karla Yedid RAYGOZA COZAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-26
Citations: 550 F. App'x 535
Docket Number: No. 12-72729
Parties: Karla Yedid RAYGOZA COZAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 550
Pages: 535–535

Head Matter:
Karla Yedid RAYGOZA COZAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-72729.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2018.
Filed Dec. 26, 2013.
Michael A. Rohr, Esquire, Law Offices of Michael A. Rohr, West Covina, CA, for Petitioner.
James A. Hurley, Oil, Annette Marie Wietecha, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, 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
Karla Yedid Raygoza Cozar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's denial of her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's continuous physical presence determination, Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Raygoza Cozar did not demonstrate the requisite ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States where there was inconsistent testimony related to her residential history from 1995 to 1998 and a lack of documentary evidence for that period. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A). Contrary to Raygoza Cozar's contention, the agency was permitted to consider Raygoza Cozar's failure to supply evidence corroborating her testimony in the absence of an adverse credibility finding. See 8 U.S.C § 1229a(c)(4)(B).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Raygoza Cozar'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.