Mario Hernandez Gonzalez 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).
LR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO HERNANDEZ GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 07-71568
08-70702
Agency No. A096-070-573
MEMORANDUM *
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Mario Hernandez Gonzalez, a
native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
FILED
JAN 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LR/Research 07-71568 2
decision denying his application for cancellation of removal, and the BIA’s order
denying his motion to reopen, based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s continuous physical presence determination, Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft,
381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2004), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a
motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we
deny the petitions for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Hernandez Gonzalez met his
burden to establish continuous physical presence where he provided insufficient
evidence of his presence from 1993 to 2000. 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).
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Hernandez
Gonzalez’s motion to reopen because it was filed more than 90 days after the
BIA’s final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Hernandez-
Gonzalez did not show he was entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321
F.3d at 897.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --