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:T43a,MEMORANDUM Alfredo Morales-Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 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. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Morales-Gutierrez did not meet his burden of establishing continuous physical presence, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A), because his testimony was internally inconsistent and was inconsistent with his witness’ testimony about Morales-Gutierrez’s entry date, addresses, and employment for the requisite time period. Cf. Vera-Villegas v. INS, 330 F.3d 1222, 1231-34 (9th Cir.2003). 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:T467,

MEMORANDUM

Alfredo Morales-Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 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.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Morales-Gutierrez did not meet his burden of establishing continuous physical presence, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A), because his testimony was internally inconsistent and was inconsistent with his witness’ testimony about Morales-Gutierrez’s entry date, addresses, and employment for the requisite time period. Cf. Vera-Villegas v. INS, 330 F.3d 1222, 1231-34 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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