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:T4b6,MEMORANDUM Joseph Howard Ludena Mendoza, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo questions of law, and for substantial evidence the agency’s factual determinations. Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 832 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determinations that Ludena Mendoza failed to establish he had been inspected and admitted into the United States, and that Ludena Mendoza therefore is not eligible for adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (a) (setting forth requirements for adjustment of status); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8 (d) (stating that applicant bears the burden of establishing eligibility for relief from removal). Ludena Mendoza’s claim that the agency employed an unclear standard and failed to develop the record is unsupported by the record. 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:T4e8,

MEMORANDUM

Joseph Howard Ludena Mendoza, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo questions of law, and for substantial evidence the agency’s factual determinations. Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 832 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determinations that Ludena Mendoza failed to establish he had been inspected and admitted into the United States, and that Ludena Mendoza therefore is not eligible for adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (a) (setting forth requirements for adjustment of status); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8 (d) (stating that applicant bears the burden of establishing eligibility for relief from removal).

Ludena Mendoza’s claim that the agency employed an unclear standard and failed to develop the record is unsupported by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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