Case Name: Adolfo RODRIGUEZ-GUZMAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-02
Citations: 314 F. App'x 938
Docket Number: No. 05-70747
Parties: Adolfo RODRIGUEZ-GUZMAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 314
Pages: 938–938

Head Matter:
Adolfo RODRIGUEZ-GUZMAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70747.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
Filed March 2, 2009.
Lamar Peckham, Law Office of Lamar Peckham, Santa Rosa, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Song Park, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Adolfo Rodriguez-Guzman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's 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 physical presence determination, Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Rodriguez-Guzman did not meet the requirement that he demonstrate ten years of continuous physical presence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2) (departure for any periods exceeding 180 days in the aggregate breaks continuous physical presence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.