Alejandra Mendoza Ramirez 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).
TL/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEJANDRA MENDOZA RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74483
Agency No. A095-310-841
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Alejandra Mendoza Ramirez, 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”) order denying her application for cancellation
FILED
FEB 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

TL/Research 07-74483 2
of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d
1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2003), and review de novo constitutional claims, Colmenar v.
INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Mendoza
Ramirez failed to establish the ten years of continuous physical presence required
for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2) (departure in excess of
ninety days breaks continuous physical presence).
The record does not support Mendoza Ramirez’s contention that the IJ’s
manner of questioning her violated due process. See Melkonian, 320 F.3d at 1072.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --