Angelica Ramos Carmona 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ANGELICA RAMOS CARMONA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73652
Agency No. A095-291-689
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.
Angelica Ramos Carmona, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of
removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
APR 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination,
Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Carmona did
not meet the continuous physical presence requirement where she testified, in
accordance with her cancellation application, that she departed the United States
for Mexico in September of 1991 for seven months, and in April of 1998 for
seventeen months. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2) (departure in excess of 90 days or
for any periods in the aggregate exceeding 180 days breaks continuous physical
presence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --