
    Oscar CHAVEZ-ELIZONDO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72845.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 25, 2010.
    Murray David Hilts, Law Offices of Murray D. Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Drew Brinkman, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Joseph Anthony O’Connell, Oil, Michelle Gorden Latour, Esquire, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Cas-Distriet Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Oscar Chavez-Elizondo, 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”) 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 continuous physical presence determination, Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Chavez-Elizondo did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement where he testified that he accepted voluntary departure instead of appearing before an IJ during the relevant statutory time period. See id. at 1117-18 (petitioner’s testimony that he had the opportunity to go before an IJ and chose to depart instead is sufficient to establish presence-breaking voluntary departure).

Chavez-Elizondo’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.
     