Case Name: Alejandra MALDONADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-27
Citations: 397 F. App'x 342
Docket Number: No. 08-73389
Parties: Alejandra MALDONADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 397
Pages: 342–343

Head Matter:
Alejandra MALDONADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73389.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 27, 2010.
Michael Paul Karr, Law Offices of Michael P. Karr & Associates, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner.
Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, 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: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. 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 Maldonado, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's continuous physical presence determination, Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Maldonado met her burden to establish continuous physical presence where she testified on more than one occasion that she entered the United States in January 1996. 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).
Maldonado's due process contention regarding a continuance is unavailing.
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.