
    Edy GONZALEZ-SORIA, a.k.a. Edy Gonzalez Soria, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72002.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed June 29, 2011.
    Edy Gonzalez-Soria, Oxnard, CA, pro se.
    Sara Bergene, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Edy Gonzalez-Soria, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal and denying his motion to continue. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence finding, Landin-Zavala v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 1150, 1151 (9th Cir.2007), for abuse of discretion the denial of a motionto continue, and de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gonzalez-Soria did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement where the record indicates that he was deported from the United States in 1997. See Landin-Zavala, 488 F.3d at 1153 (deportation or removal terminates the accrual of physical presence).

The IJ did not abuse his discretion or violate due process in denying a continuance because Gonzalez-Soria did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

Gonzalez-Soria’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

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