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:T546,MEMORANDUM 2 Hector Froilan Ramirez-Gallo (“Petitioner”) petitions for review of the final order of deportation entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) on July 31, 2000. Petitioner was served with an order to show cause (“OSC”) on September 19,1996, less than seven years after he entered the United States on February 23, 1990. At a hearing on February 9, 1998, the Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s application for suspension of deportation because Petitioner had failed to meet the continuous physical presence requirement before being served with the OSC and thus was statutorily ineligible for suspension. On appeal, the BIA affirmed. Petitioner contends that he was eligible for suspension of deportation and challenges the BIA’s decision that the “stop- *758 time rule” — a new continuous physical presence requirement set forth in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 3009 -625 — bars such relief in his case. Petitioner’s arguments challenging the application of the stop-time rule are foreclosed by our recent decision in Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510 (9th Cir.2001). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. . This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T561,

MEMORANDUM 2

Hector Froilan Ramirez-Gallo (“Petitioner”) petitions for review of the final order of deportation entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) on July 31, 2000. Petitioner was served with an order to show cause (“OSC”) on September 19,1996, less than seven years after he entered the United States on February 23, 1990. At a hearing on February 9, 1998, the Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s application for suspension of deportation because Petitioner had failed to meet the continuous physical presence requirement before being served with the OSC and thus was statutorily ineligible for suspension. On appeal, the BIA affirmed.

Petitioner contends that he was eligible for suspension of deportation and challenges the BIA’s decision that the “stop- *758 time rule” — a new continuous physical presence requirement set forth in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 3009 -625 — bars such relief in his case. Petitioner’s arguments challenging the application of the stop-time rule are foreclosed by our recent decision in Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.