Chavez

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated petitions for review, Ines Chavez and Monserrat Hurtado, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for suspension of deportation, and its order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination. Canales-Vargas v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 739, 742 (9th Cir.2006). We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petitions for review.

In No. 08-71325, the record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners met their burden of establishing continuous physical presence where they failed to provide sufficient evidence supporting their presence from October 19, 1988, to October 19,1995. 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”)…