Case Name: Angelica RAMOS CARMONA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-12
Citations: 373 F. App'x 812
Docket Number: No. 07-73652
Parties: Angelica RAMOS CARMONA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 373
Pages: 812–813

Head Matter:
Angelica RAMOS CARMONA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73652.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 12, 2010.
Smirna Ayala, Law offices of Ronzio & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, Michael John Hernandez, The Hernandez Law Group, Montebello, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jeffery R. Leist, Trial, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, 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
Angelica Ramos Carmona, 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 pursuant to 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 BIA's determination that Carmona did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement where she testified, in accordance with her cancellation application, that she departed the United States for Mexico in September of 1991 for seven months, and in April of 1998 for seventeen months. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2) (departure in excess of 90 days or for any periods in the aggregate exceeding 180 days breaks continuous physical presence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.