Case Name: Melesio MORALES-MATA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-16
Citations: 497 F. App'x 761
Docket Number: No. 11-71141
Parties: Melesio MORALES-MATA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 497
Pages: 761–762

Head Matter:
Melesio MORALES-MATA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-71141.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
Filed Nov. 16, 2012.
Peter Hurtado, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Edward C. Durant, John Beadle Holt, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Blair O’Connor, Assistant Director, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Melesio Morales-Mata, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's continuous physical presence determination, Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that Morales-Mata's inconsistent testimonial evidence was insufficient to meet his burden of proving ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A); cf. Lopez-Alvarado, 381 F.3d at 851-53 (finding that petitioners had met their burden where the detailed documentary and testimonial evidence presented by petitioners was consistent).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.