Case Name: Jose Luis MEJIA-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-13
Citations: 387 F. App'x 718
Docket Number: No. 08-70082
Parties: Jose Luis MEJIA-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 387
Pages: 718–719

Head Matter:
Jose Luis MEJIA-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70082.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 13, 2010.
Murray D. Hilts, Esq., Law Offices of Murray Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
District Director, 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, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Luis Mejia-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence the agency's continuous physical presence determination, Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir.2008); Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir.2005), we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that Mejia-Garcia failed to establish the requisite continuous physical presence where the record contains a signed Notice and Request for Disposition form stating that he was giving up his right to a hearing before an IJ and agreeing to return to Mexico. See Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 961, 973 (9th Cir.2003); see also 8 C.F.R. § 240.64(b)(3).
In light of our disposition, we need not address Mejia-Garcia's adverse credibility-contentions.
Mejia-Garcia's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.