
    Maria Alicia Juana Duran MARTINEZ, AKA Alicia Duran, AKA Juana Martinez, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-72975
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 15, 2017
    
      Larry Liem Doan, Attorney, Law Offices of Larry L. Doan, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
    Stefanie A. Svoren-Jay, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ'—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Alicia Juana Duran Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and for substantial evidence factual findings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agency correctly concluded that Duran Martinez was statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) because she is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), where substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that she reentered the United States without being admitted, after previously accruing more than one year of unlawful presence. See Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.Sd 504, 513-14 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Contrary to Duran Martinez’s contention, the agency did not rely on her witness’s testimony in making that determination.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     