Daniel Medina-Landei 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DANIEL MEDINA-LANDEI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70641
Agency No. A074-334-051
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Medina-Landei, 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 suspension of
FILED
JUN 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-70641 2
deportation. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s
continuous physical presence determination for substantial evidence,
Canales-Vargas v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 739, 742 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the
petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Medina-Landei met his
burden to establish continuous physical presence where he failed to provide
sufficient evidence supporting his presence from December 1989 to April 1990.
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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --