
    Alonso NEVAREZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-72064.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2016.
    
    Filed March 22, 2016.
    Matthew Harrison Green, Esquire, Law Offices of Matthew H. Green, Tucson, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Matt Crapo, O.I.L., D.O.J.-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: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alonso Nevarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, the agency’s factual determination regarding continuous physical presence, Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir.2006), and we review de novo constitutional claims, Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Nevarez’s voluntary return to Mexico disrupted continuous physical presence, rendering him ineligible for cancellation of removal, where Nevarez signed a form indicating he requested voluntary return and testified he was told of his options, and where an immigration officer testified that he followed proper procedure in informing Nevarez of his rights. See Ibarra-Flores, 439 F.3d at 619 (administrative voluntary departure under threat of deportation constitutes a break in continuous physical presence if the alien.is informed of and accepts the terms of the departure); Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1117-18 (9th Cir.2008) (an alien’s testimony that he was given a choice between removal proceedings and administrative voluntary departure constitutes substantial evidence that the departure was knowing and voluntary).

Nevarez’s assertion that the BIA violated due process by failing to consider his testimony and by making sua sponte factual findings is not supported by the record.

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