Patricia Ledezma-Rivas 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
PATRICIA LEDEZMA-RIVAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73282
Agency No. A075-619-131
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 23, 2010**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Patricia Ledezma-Rivas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo,
FILED
SEP 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-73282 2
Tapia v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 997, 999 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petition for
review.
The agency properly determined that Ledezma-Rivas was ineligible for
cancellation of removal because she failed to meet the seven-year continuous
physical presence requirement. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2) (requiring seven years
of continuous presence after having been “admitted in any status”); see also 8
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(A) (defining “admitted” as “the lawful entry of an alien into
the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --