Pedro Santiago-Reyes, et al v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 08-74424 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 27 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PEDRO SANTIAGO-REYES; et al., Petitioners, No. 08-74424 Agency Nos. A095-876-668 A095-876-669 A095-876-670 v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM * Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Pedro Santiago-Reyes and his family, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying their applications 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 agency s continuous physical presence determination, Canales-Vargas v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 739, 742 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners met their burden of establishing continuous physical presence where they failed to provide sufficient evidence supporting their presence from August 1992 to August 2002. 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). We lack jurisdiction over petitioners contention that the agency erred in relying on their withdrawn asylum applications because they failed to exhaust that issue before the BIA.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 08-74424

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.