
    Joel DIAZ-ARANGO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72544.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed June 30, 2015.
    Paula Helena Gonzalez, Law Office of Paula Gonzalez, Chula Vista, CA, for Petitioner.
    Kevin James Conway, Esquire, OIL, DOJ-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: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. ■
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joel Diaz-Arango, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order 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. Serrano Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Diaz-Arango’s voluntary return to Mexico interrupted his period of continuous physical presence, where Diaz-Arango does not dispute that he signed a voluntary return form that stated that was giving up the right to a hearing before an immigration judge, the record shows that this form was read to him in Spanish, and Diaz-Arango testified that he relied on an attorney’s advice in accepting voluntary return to Mexico. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A); Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 619-20 (9th Cir.2006) (in order to interrupt the accumulation of continuous physical presence, the decision to accept voluntary return in lieu of a hearing before an immigration judge must be knowing and voluntary).

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