Brenda Yaneth Zavala-Lugo v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRENDA YANETH ZAVALA-LUGO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73815
Agency No. A200-806-579
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Brenda Yaneth Zavala-Lugo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 14 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-73815
substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination.
Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Zavala-Lugo
failed to establish the requisite continuous physical presence for cancellation of
removal, where she presented inconsistent testimony regarding her departures from
the United States during the requisite period. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(B);
8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) (petitioner bears the burden of proving she is eligible for
cancellation of removal); 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A), (d)(2); Corro-Barragan v.
Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1178 (9th Cir. 2013) (a departure of more than 90 days or
more than 180 days in the aggregate breaks the 10 years continuous physical
presence required for cancellation of removal).
We lack jurisdiction to review Zavala-Lugo’s unexhausted due process
contention. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack
jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative
proceedings before the BIA.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --