
    Maria Concepsion SANCHEZ DE OROZCO, a.k.a. Concepcion Sanchez-Rivera, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70813.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 28, 2011.
    Esmeralda Alfaro, Alfaro & Associates, A PLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Maria Concepsion Sanchez de Orozco, pro se.
    Nairi Mary Simonian, Esquire, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Concepsion Sanchez De Orozco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her 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, Ibarrar-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir.2006), and review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Sanchez De Orozco did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement where the record includes a Notice and Order of Expedited Removal as well as other government documents corroborating the expedited removal. See Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 511 (9th Cir.2007) (expedited removal order interrupts an alien’s continuous physical presence for cancellation purposes).

Sanchez De Orozco’s due process claim fails because the IJ properly denied her cancellation application on the basis that she failed to establish the requisite continuous physical presence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

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