Case Name: Nathalie Tatyana BECK, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-25
Citations: 412 F. App'x 942
Docket Number: No. 08-73447
Parties: Nathalie Tatyana BECK, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HUG, SCHROEDER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 412
Pages: 942–942

Head Matter:
Nathalie Tatyana BECK, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73447.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2011.
Filed Jan. 25, 2011.
Luther M. Snavely, III, Esquire, Garcia-Mendoza & Snavely Chtd., Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
Monica Antoun, Esquire, Francis William Fraser, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Susan Houser, 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: HUG, SCHROEDER, and RAWLINSON, 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
Nathalie Tatyana Beck, a native and citizen of Norway, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision finding her removable for failure to maintain or comply with the conditions of her F-l nonimmigrant student status.
This court reviews the agency's legal determinations de novo, and factual findings for substantial evidence. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009).
Petitioner's F-l nonimmigrant student status was terminated by her school because she had failed to make up several incomplete classes from the Fall semester of 2004. Petitioner's failure to complete required course work in a satisfactory and timely manner constitutes substantial evidence supporting a finding by clear and convincing evidence that she failed to pursue a full course of study as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0(5)0).
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.