Case Name: Jovita SALAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-17
Citations: 447 F. App'x 835
Docket Number: No. 09-72357
Parties: Jovita SALAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 447
Pages: 835–836

Head Matter:
Jovita SALAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72357.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2011.
Filed Aug. 17, 2011.
Peter James Musser, Peter James Mus-ser A Professional Corporation, Vista, CA, for Petitioner.
Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Daniel Shieh, Esquire, Francis William Fraser, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, 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
Jovita Salas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") 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 de novo questions of law, Lopez v. INS, 184 F.3d 1097, 1099 (9th Cir.1999), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA properly concluded that Salas was ineligible for cancellation of removal because she lacked seven years of continuous residence in the United States after being "admitted in any status." See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2); Vasquez De Alcantar, 645 F.3d 1097, 1100-01 (9th Cir.2011) (filing an application for adjustment of status does not constitute "admitted in any status").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.