
    Rosa Elia REYNAGA REYES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71552.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
    Rosa Elia Reynaga Reyes, El Monte, CA, pro se.
    Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rosa Elia Reynaga Reyes, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination. Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Reynaga Reyes met her burden to establish continuous physical presence where she failed to provide sufficient evidence supporting her presence from 1987 to 1989. 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 do not consider Reynaga Reyes’s contention regarding hardship, because her failure to establish continuous physical presence is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A).

Reynaga Reyes’ remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     