
    Jose Pablo VASQUEZ-RIVERA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-70773.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2013.
    
    Filed June 20, 2013.
    Diana M. Bailey, Law Office of Diana M. Bailey, Portland, OR, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Deitz P. Lefort, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Pablo Vasquez-Rivera, 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”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir.2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Vasquez-Rivera did not demonstrate the requisite ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2) (departure in excess of 90 days or for any periods in the aggregate exceeding 180 days breaks continuous physical presence).

Because Vasquez-Rivera’s failure to demonstrate continuous physical presence is dispositive, we need not reach his contentions regarding the IJ’s hardship determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir.2003) (“[cjancellation of removal ... is based on statutory predicates that must first be met”); cf. Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that where requirements for relief “are conjunctive, failure to meet any one of them is fatal”). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Vasquez-Rivera did not merit voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)©; Gil v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1000, 1006 (9th Cir.2011).

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