Case Name: Martin ROJAS-REFUJIO, aka Martin Refugio, aka Martin Rojas, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-03
Citations: 670 F. App'x 521
Docket Number: No. 14-73034
Parties: Martin ROJAS-REFUJIO, aka Martin Refugio, aka Martin Rojas, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 521–522

Head Matter:
Martin ROJAS-REFUJIO, aka Martin Refugio, aka Martin Rojas, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-73034
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 25, 2016
Filed November 03, 2016
Martin Rojas-Refujio, Pro Se, Fullerton, CA, for Petitioner.
Jessica Dawgert, Trial Attorney, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, San Francisco, CA, Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, 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
Martin Rojas-Refujio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's continuous physical presence determination. Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Rojas-Refujio failed to establish the requisite continuous physical presence, where Rojas-Refujio testified that he remained outside the United States for a period of more than 180 days in the aggregate during the statutory period. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A), (d)(2) (a departure in excess of 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.