22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T41a,MEMORANDUM Patricia Ledezma-Rivas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 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 under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review questions of law de novo, Tapia v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 997, 999 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review. The agency properly determined that Ledezma-Rivas was ineligible for cancellation of removal because she failed to meet the seven-year continuous physical presence requirement. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2) (requiring seven years of continuous presence after having been “admitted in any status”); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(13)(A) (defining “admitted” as “the lawful entry of an alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T447,

MEMORANDUM

Patricia Ledezma-Rivas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 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 under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review questions of law de novo, Tapia v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 997, 999 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency properly determined that Ledezma-Rivas was ineligible for cancellation of removal because she failed to meet the seven-year continuous physical presence requirement. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2) (requiring seven years of continuous presence after having been “admitted in any status”); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(13)(A) (defining “admitted” as “the lawful entry of an alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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