Pena Balbuena v. Holder

382 F. App'x 650

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 9, 2010
• Docket: 07-73827
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Fernando Pena Balbuena and Angela Nunez Guerrero, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 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.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that petitioners did not meet their burden of establishing continuous physical presence, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A), because their testimony was materially inconsistent -with their witness’ testimony and affidavits regarding their place of residence after entry, cf. Vera-Villegas v. INS, 330 F.3d 1222, 1231-34 (9th Cir.2003), and petitioners failed to provide sufficient supporting documentation attesting to their presence prior to 1994, see Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that an IJ may require documentary evidence when she either does not believe an applicant or does not know what to believe).

We do not consider petitioners’ contention regarding hardship, because their failure to establish continuous physical presence is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.