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:T440,MEMORANDUM Ramiro Reyna Reyna, 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 Reyna Reyna 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). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T46d,

MEMORANDUM

Ramiro Reyna Reyna, 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 Reyna Reyna 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).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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