Case Name: Martha Alicia GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-14
Citations: 375 F. App'x 769
Docket Number: No. 07-74101
Parties: Martha Alicia GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 375
Pages: 769–770

Head Matter:
Martha Alicia GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74101.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 14, 2010.
Carlos Alfredo Cruz, Esquire, Law Offices of Carlos A. Cruz, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
Arthur L. Rabin, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, 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
Martha Alicia Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision pretermitting her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, and review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
The IJ properly refused to accept documentary evidence at Gomez's final hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c).
The BIA properly concluded that Gomez failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the ineffective assistance was not plain on the face of the record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597-99 (9th Cir.2004).
Substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that Gomez failed to establish the continuous physical presence required for cancellation of removal because Gomez did not submit sufficient evidence of her presence between July 1993 and August 1993. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A), (d)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.