Case Name: Juan Alberto VILLA-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-29
Citations: 441 F. App'x 435
Docket Number: No. 10-71094
Parties: Juan Alberto VILLA-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 441
Pages: 435–436

Head Matter:
Juan Alberto VILLA-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-71094.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 29, 2011.
Maurice Goldman, Goldman & Goldman, Tucson, AZ, for Petitioner.
OIL, David H. Wetmore, 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: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, 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
Juan Alberto Villa-Flores, 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 continuous physical presence determination, Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Villa-Flores did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement where he testified that he accepted voluntary departure instead of appearing before an IJ during the relevant statutory time period. See id. at 1117-18 (petitioner's testimony that he had the opportunity to go before an IJ and chose to depart instead is sufficient to establish presence-breaking voluntary departure).
We do not consider Villa-Flores' hardship contentions because his failure to establish continuous physical presence is dis-positive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.