
    Jaime Peralta FLORES; Katia Veronica Marin Rojas; Ingrid Yohali Peralta Marin, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75970.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.
    
    Filed March 1, 2007.
    Jaime Peralta Flores, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
    Katia Veronica Marin Rojas, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
    Ingrid Yohali Peralta Marin, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., Stacy S. Paddack, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jaime Peralta Flores and Katia Veronica Marin Rojas, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s physical presence determination for substantial evidence, Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir.2004), and deny the petition for review.

Peralta Flores testified that he was not present in the United States before 1993 and Marin Rojas testified that she was not present in the United States before 1996. To demonstrate continuous physical presence for the statutory period, petitioners would have had to prove their presence beginning February 1992. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(l). Substantial evidence therefore supports the agency’s conclusion that they failed to establish the requisite continuous physical presence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(a).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . Petitioners’ minor daughter, Ingrid, did not apply for cancellation of removal.
     