Bello v. Gonzales , 401 F. App'x 185 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDREA VILLA BELLO, No. 05-75947
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-306-083
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Andrea Villa Bello, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for
cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. §1252. We
*
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).
review for substantial evidence the BIA’s determination of continuous physical
presence. Landin-Zavala v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 1150, 1151 (9th Cir. 2007). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Bello was
ordered expeditiously removed in 1998 under the name Theresa Martinez Lopez,
which she conceded was her alias, and that Bello therefore did not meet the
continuous physical presence requirement for cancellation of removal. See
Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 511-12 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that an
expedited removal order interrupts an alien’s continuous physical presence for
cancellation purposes). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s
determination that Bello had not accrued ten years of continuous physical presence
at the time she was served with the Notice to Appear (“NTA”) in April 2002. See
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1).
We lack jurisdiction to review Bello’s challenge to the IJ’s denial of her
request for a continuance because Bello failed to exhaust this issue before the BIA.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 05-75947
3 05-75947