Case Name: Maria Enriqueta Villicana PENA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-22
Citations: 186 F. App'x 789
Docket Number: No. 04-74087
Parties: Maria Enriqueta Villicana PENA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 186
Pages: 789–790

Head Matter:
Maria Enriqueta Villicana PENA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-74087.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 12, 2006.
Decided June 22, 2006.
Maria Enriqueta Villicana Pena, Phoenix, ML, pro se.
CAC — District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Stacy S. Paddack, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KLEINFELD, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Maria Enriqueta ViUicaña Peña, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance of an immigration judge's decision denying her application for cancellation of removal on the ground that she failed to establish ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States due to a departure of more than 90 days. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2). Villicaña Peña contends that she met the hardship requirement for cancellation of removal, but she does not challenge the finding that she failed to meet the continuous presence requirement. We therefore deny the petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1129b(b)(l) (setting forth four requirements for establishing eligibility for cancellation of removal).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.