22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4e7,MEMORANDUM Jose Luis Mejia-Garcia, 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 . Reviewing for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination, Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir.2008); Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir.2005), we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Mejia-Garcia failed to establish the requisite continuous physical presence where the record contains a signed Notice and Request for Disposition form stating that he was giving up his right to a hearing before an IJ and agreeing to return to Mexico. See Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 961, 973 (9th Cir.2003); see also 8 C.F.R. § 240.64 (b)(3). In light of our disposition, we need not address Mejia-Garcia’s adverse credibility-contentions. Mejia-Garcia’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T51e,

MEMORANDUM

Jose Luis Mejia-Garcia, 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 . Reviewing for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination, Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir.2008); Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir.2005), we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Mejia-Garcia failed to establish the requisite continuous physical presence where the record contains a signed Notice and Request for Disposition form stating that he was giving up his right to a hearing before an IJ and agreeing to return to Mexico. See Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 961, 973 (9th Cir.2003); see also 8 C.F.R. § 240.64 (b)(3).

In light of our disposition, we need not address Mejia-Garcia’s adverse credibility-contentions.

Mejia-Garcia’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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