NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
HECTOR ENRIQUE ALFARO- No. 10-71693
FONSECA,
Agency No. A094-948-401
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Hector Enrique Alfaro-Fonseca, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
*
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).
evidence the agency’s factual findings, Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847,
850-51 (9th Cir. 2004), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
continue, Barapind v. Reno, 225 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding
because Alfaro-Fonseca’s testimony regarding his multiple departures from the
United States was materially inconsistent with the single departure listed on his
application. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034-1039-1044 (detailing this
Court’s REAL ID adverse credibility standards); cf. Vera-Villegas v. INS, 330 F.3d
1222, 1231-34 (9th Cir. 2003). Because Alfaro-Fonseca’s testimony was not
credible and he did not provide sufficient supporting documentation of his physical
presence in the United States during the statutory time period, substantial evidence
supports the agency’s determination that he did not meet his burden of establishing
continuous physical presence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A).
The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying a continuance on the ground
that Alfaro-Fonseca did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ
may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown).
Alfaro-Fonseca’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 10-71693