Case Name: Tirath SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-22
Citations: 319 F. App'x 495
Docket Number: No. 06-73148
Parties: Tirath SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 319
Pages: 495–496

Head Matter:
Tirath SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73148.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
Filed Jan. 22, 2009.
Peter Singh, Fresno, CA, for Petitioner.
Lyle Davis Jentzer, Paul F. Stone, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Tirath Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency's continuous physical presence determination for substantial evidence. Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Singh met his burden to establish continuous physical presence where he failed to provide sufficient evidence supporting his presence prior to 1993. 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.