Jose Trinidad Padilla Nicasio; Martha Alicia Padilla Servin 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSE TRINIDAD PADILLA NICASIO;
MARTHA ALICIA PADILLA SERVIN,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72372
Agency Nos. A095-301-631
A095-301-632
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.
Jose Trinidad Padilla Nicasio and Martha Alicia Padilla Servin, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction
FILED
APR 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
pursuant to 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), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
continue, Barapind v. Reno, 225 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000), and we deny the
petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners met their burden
to establish continuous physical presence from 1992 to 2002. See Singh-Kaur v.
INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 1999) (a contrary result is not compelled where
there is “[t]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the
evidence”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In light of our
disposition, we need not address petitioners’ contentions regarding the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying a continuance where
petitioners did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may
grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown). It follows that the IJ did
not violate due process by denying petitioners a continuance. See Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --