
    Pierre Vilerito JOSE, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-76803.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 3, 2007 .
    Filed Dec. 10, 2007.
    Ted Laguatan, Law Offices of Ted Laguatan and Associates, Daly City, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Manuel A. Palau, Genevieve Holm, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pierre Vilerito Jose, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order upholding an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s continuous physical presence determination for substantial evidence. See Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir.2006). We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. See Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Jose did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement where Jose conceded he had departed the United States for 199 days. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2); see also Mendiola-Sanchez v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 937, 939 (9th Cir.2004) (stating that the 90/180 day rule replaced the previous “brief, casual, and innocent” standard for determining when a departure breaks continuous physical presence).

Jose’s contention that the streamlined BIA decision violates his due process rights is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 848 (9th Cir.2003).

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