Court Opinion

ID: 4152999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-03-15 20:02:03.607327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:49.033759
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            MAR 15 2017

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA ALICIA JUANA DURAN                         No.   15-72975
MARTINEZ, AKA Alicia Duran, AKA
Juana Martinez,                                  Agency No. A200-306-002

               Petitioner,
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
 v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,

               Respondent.

                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted March 8, 2017**

Before:        LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Maria Alicia Juana Duran Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from

an immigration judge’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law and for substantial evidence factual

findings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny

the petition for review.

      The agency correctly concluded that Duran Martinez was statutorily

ineligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) because she is

inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), where substantial evidence

supports the agency’s determination that she reentered the United States without

being admitted, after previously accruing more than one year of unlawful presence.

See Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504, 513-14 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc).

Contrary to Duran Martinez’s contention, the agency did not rely on her witness’s

testimony in making that determination.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          2                                   15-72975