Case Name: Esteban ORTEGA-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-02
Citations: 540 F. App'x 749
Docket Number: No. 10-72614
Parties: Esteban ORTEGA-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 749–749

Head Matter:
Esteban ORTEGA-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-72614.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
Filed Oct. 2, 2013.
Karla L. Kraus, Esquire, Kraus Law Corporation, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
Joseph Anthony O’Connell, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, 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
Esteban Ortega-Sanchez, 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. We review for substantial evidence the agency's determination regarding continuous physical presence, Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's conclusion that Ortega-Sanchez failed to establish ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States prior to the service of his Notice to Appear because Ortega-Sanchez knowingly and voluntarily accepted administrative voluntary departure in lieu of appearing before an IJ during the relevant ten-year period. See id. at 1117-18 (acceptance of voluntary departure terminates physical presence if petitioner understood he had the right to go before an IJ and chose to depart instead).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.