Case Name: Ventura HERNANDEZ-MARQUINA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-21
Citations: 168 F. App'x 211
Docket Number: No. 04-74144
Parties: Ventura HERNANDEZ-MARQUINA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 168
Pages: 211–212

Head Matter:
Ventura HERNANDEZ-MARQUINA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-74144.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.
Decided Feb. 21, 2006.
Antonio Reyna Salazar, Esq., Salazar Law Offices, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner,
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-Distriet Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office Of The District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ventura Hernandez-Marquina, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of his application for cancellation of removal after his attorney conceded that he had voluntarily departed in 1999 and therefore could not establish ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States, as required under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A). See Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 343 F.3d 961, 974 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam). Hernandez-Marquina contends that the Board and the immigration judge denied him due process in failing further to consider his application. This contention lacks merit because the burden of proving his eligibility for cancellation of removal was on Hernandez-Marquina. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1003 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.