Opinion
No. 05-76803.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed December 10, 2007.
Ted Laguatan, Law Offices of Ted Laguatan and Associates, Daly City, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Manuel A. Palau, Genevieve Holm, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A77-173-516.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Pierre Vilerito Jose, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order upholding an immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency's continuous physical presence determination for substantial evidence. See Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2006). We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. See Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Jose did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement where Jose conceded he had departed the United States for 199 days. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2); see also Mendiola-Sanchez v. Ashcroft 381 F.3d 937, 939 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that the 90/180 day rule replaced the previous "brief, casual, and innocent" standard for determining when a departure breaks continuous physical presence).
Jose's contention that the streamlined BIA decision violates his due process rights is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 848 (9th Cir. 2003).