Martha Alicia Gomez v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTHA ALICIA GOMEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74101
Agency No. A096-349-920
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
APR 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74101 2
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)(1)(A), (d)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --