
    Pedro SANTIAGO-REYES; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-74424.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 27, 2010.
    John Martin Pope, Pope & Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioners.
    Arie Allan Anderson, Oil, James Arthur Hunolt, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 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We lack jurisdiction over petitioners’ contention that the agency erred in relying on their withdrawn asylum applications because they failed to exhaust that issue before the BIA.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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     