
    Nanang SOLIKHIN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-73971.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2008.
    
    Filed April 18, 2008.
    Kathleen S. Koh, Law Offices of Kathleen S. Koh, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Kathleen V. Gunning, Esq., Phoenix, AZ, FDIC — Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: TROTT and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and HOGAN , Chief District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Michael R. Hogan, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nanang Solikhin, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming the pretermission of his application for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history, we need not recount it here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

Solikhin’s argument that the immigration judge violated his due process rights by retroactively applying 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2) to his case is foreclosed by Garcia-Ramirez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 935 (9th Cir.2005).

Solikhin also argues that the Non-Immigrant Information System (“NIIS”) printout does not constitute reliable evidence of the date he departed the United States because the information it contains is collected by airline employees, not government officials, and because the printout at issue here is missing entries for the departure carrier or flight number. However, he did not produce any evidence to contradict the December 28,1996 departure date. Thus, his argument that the NIIS data is unreliable is insufficient to meet his burden of establishing he had not been outside of the United States for a period of more than ninety days. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     