Pedro Santiago-Reyes; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
PEDRO SANTIAGO-REYES; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74424
Agency Nos. A095-876-668
A095-876-669
A095-876-670
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Santiago-Reyes and his family, natives and citizens of Mexico,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for
cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
SEP 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74424 2
review for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence
determination, Canales-Vargas v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 739, 742 (9th Cir. 2006),
and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners met their
burden of establishing continuous physical presence where they failed to provide
sufficient evidence supporting their presence from August 1992 to August 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).
We lack jurisdiction over petitioners’ contention that the agency erred in
relying on their withdrawn asylum applications because they failed to exhaust that
issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004)
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --