Rosa Maria Argumedo Rodriguez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ROSA MARIA ARGUMEDO
RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73539
Agency No. A097-586-947
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Rosa Maria Argumedo Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for cancellation of
FILED
JAN 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LR/Research 07-73539 2
removal. 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 we deny the
petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Argumedo Rodriguez met
her burden to establish continuous physical presence from 1993 to 2003. 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). In light of our
disposition, we need not address Argumedo Rodriguez’s contentions regarding
the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.
We need not consider Argumedo Rodriguez’s contention regarding
good moral character, because her failure to establish continuous physical presence
is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --