
    Guadalupe Rendon JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70264.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2015%.
    
    Filed Nov. 25, 2015.
    Michael Conrad Johnson Office of the United States Attorney Denver, CO, for Petitioner.
    Jacob R. Rasch-Chabot, O. Dean Sand-erford, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Denver, CO, for Respondent.
    Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 (“U”) decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review 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 1-213 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     