Arturo Martinez-Escalona 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ARTURO MARTINEZ-ESCALONA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73099
Agency No. A075-769-492
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Arturo Martinez-Escalona, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,
FILED
JAN 06 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-73099 2
Tapia v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 997, 999 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petition for
review.
The agency properly concluded that Martinez-Escalona was ineligible for
cancellation of removal because he failed to meet the seven-year continuous
physical presence requirement. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2) (requiring seven years
of continuous residence 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 --