GUADALUPE RENDON JIMENEZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-70264 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOV 25 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GUADALUPE RENDON JIMENEZ, Petitioner, No. 14-70264 Agency No. A046-620-044 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 18, 2015** Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Guadalupe Rendon Jimenez, 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”) decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review * 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). for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rendon Jimenez did not qualify for cancellation of removal where her evidence was insufficient to establish that she had accrued seven years of continuous physical residence in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) (alien “shall have the burden of establishing that he or she is eligible for any requested benefit or privilege”). Rendon Jimenez’s contention that the IJ abused his discretion by failing to afford her testimony and the testimony of her witnesses greater weight than the I213 Form is unavailing. In light of this disposition, we do not reach Rendon Jimenez’s remaining contention regarding whether she was admitted as a lawful permanent resident for at least five years. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-70264

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.