Case Name: Domingo CANSECO-RODRIGUEZ, AKA Domingo Conseco Rodriguez, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-20
Citations: 666 F. App'x 683
Docket Number: No. 15-71170
Parties: Domingo CANSECO-RODRIGUEZ, AKA Domingo Conseco Rodriguez, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 666
Pages: 683–683

Head Matter:
Domingo CANSECO-RODRIGUEZ, AKA Domingo Conseco Rodriguez, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-71170
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 14, 2016
Filed December 20, 2016
Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Attorney, Federal Immigration Counselors, AZ, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner
Aimee J. Carmichael, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, 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
Domingo Canseco-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") 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). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Canseco-Rodriguez failed to provide sufficient testimonial and. documentary evidence to establish the requisite ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A), (d)(1).
We reject Canseco-Rodriguez's contention that the agency failed to analyze all relevant evidence. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding the BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.