
    Natanael SAMAYOA, a.k.a. Natanael Samay Morales, a.k.a. Natanel Morales Samayoa, a.k.a. Nathanael Morales Samayoa, a.k.a. Nathaniel Morales Samayoa, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72421.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 26, 2010.
    Natanael Samayoa, Eloy, AZ, pro se.
    Erica Miles, OIL, Elizabeth Young, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Offíce of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Natanael Samayoa, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his applications for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims and questions of law, and review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Samayoa had, during the period of ten years immediately preceding the date of his application for cancellation of removal, “been confined, as a result of conviction, to a penal institution for an aggregate period of one hundred and eighty days or more.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(7). Accordingly, Samayoa is statutorily barred from showing the good moral character required for cancellation of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(B), and his claim the agency violated due process by refusing to consider his evidence of rehabilitation fails, see Bazuaye v. INS, 79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir.1996).

To the extent that Samayoa challenges the agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT, he has offered no basis to conclude the agency erred. Samayoa’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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.
     