FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDREAS VASQUEZ-ZARCO, No. 07-73356
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-168-268
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010 **
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Andreas Vasquez-Zarco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1252. We review for substantial
evidence the BIA’s determination of continuous physical presence. Landin-Zavala
v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 1150, 1151 (9th Cir. 2007). We review de novo questions
of law and due process claims. Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.
2008). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Vasquez-Zarco
failed to establish the ten years of continuous physical presence required for
cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2) (departure in excess of ninety
days breaks continuous physical presence). Vasquez-Zarco fails to point to any
authority in support of his theory of constructive presence. Cf. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(1)(A) (Alien must be “physically present in the United States for a
continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such
application.”)
Vasquez-Zarco’s due process claim is not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 07-73356