Case ID: f-appx_176/html/0821-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Noe SANTANA-VALLE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-74229.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2006.
    
    Decided April 18, 2006.
    Kevin A. Bove, Esq., Escondido, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michelle G. Latour, P. Michael Truman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, MCKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Noe Santana-Valle, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

Based on the clear and unambiguous language of § 1229b(d)(2), substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Santana-Valle failed to established the requisite ten years of continuous physical presence because he left the United States for more than ninety days in 1994 and 1995. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.