Case Name: Dolores VICTORIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-16
Citations: 131 F. App'x 587
Docket Number: No. 04-70925
Parties: Dolores VICTORIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 131
Pages: 587–588

Head Matter:
Dolores VICTORIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-70925.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 9, 2005.
Decided May 16, 2005.
Judith L. Wood, Esq., Law Offices of Judith L. Wood, Human Rights Project, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
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, Emily A. Radford, Esq., Jennifer Keeney, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Dolores Victoria, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance of an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Vera-Villegas v. INS, 330 F.3d 1222, 1230 (9th Cir.2003), and grant the petition for review.
Although Victoria's testimony regarding her continuous physical presence potentially conflicted with the testimony of her witness, she was never given an opportunity to clarify. See Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1200 (9th Cir.2004) ("unclear testimony may not serve as substantial evidence for an adverse credibility finding when an applicant is not given the chance to attempt to clarify his or her testimony.") (citation omitted). Accordingly, the IJ's conclusion that Victoria did not meet her burden of proving continuous physical presence is not supported by substantial evidence. See id.
We remand this matter for the Attorney General to determine whether, accepting Victoria's testimony regarding continuous physical presence as credible, and in light of the IJ's findings that she established exceptional and extremely unusual hardship and good moral character, Victoria is entitled to a favorable exercise of discretion. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-17, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED..
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.