Guadalupe Rendon Jimenez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUADALUPE RENDON JIMENEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70264
Agency No. A046-620-044
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Guadalupe Rendon Jimenez, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying her application for
cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
NOV 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Mohammed v. Gonzales,
400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rendon
Jimenez did not qualify for cancellation of removal where her evidence was
insufficient to establish that she had accrued seven years of continuous physical
residence in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) (alien
“shall have the burden of establishing that he or she is eligible for any requested
benefit or privilege”).
Rendon Jimenez’s contention that the IJ abused his discretion by failing to
afford her testimony and the testimony of her witnesses greater weight than the I-
213 Form is unavailing.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Rendon Jimenez’s remaining
contention regarding whether she was admitted as a lawful permanent resident for
at least five years.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
14-70264 2

-- 2 of 2 --