Case Name: Ramon RAMIREZ-MACIAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-22
Citations: 329 F. App'x 166
Docket Number: No. 04-70127
Parties: Ramon RAMIREZ-MACIAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 329
Pages: 166–167

Head Matter:
Ramon RAMIREZ-MACIAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-70127.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 14, 2009.
Filed July 22, 2009.
Steven P. Brazelton, Law Offices of Steven P. Brazelton, Reno, NV, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security San Francisco, CA, NVL-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, Papú Sandhu, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ramon Ramirez-Macias, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision pretermitting his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir.2006), we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Ramirez-Macias did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement. See id. Ramirez-Macias was apprehended in 1994 and signed documents, provided in Spanish, giving up his right to a hearing and his right to apply for relief before an IJ, and agreeing to return to Mexico. See Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 343 F.3d 961, 974 (9th Cir.2003) ("[A]n alien who commits to departure in order to avoid deportation proceedings is not entitled to continue accruing presence."); cf. Ibarra-Flores, 439 F.3d at 619-20.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.