Quirino Estrada, a native and citizen of Mexico, has filed a petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s pretermission and denial of his application for cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l). Estrada’s sole argument on appeal is that In re Romalez-Alcaide, 23 I. & N. Dec. 423, 424-29 (BIA 2002), was decided incorrectly, that this court’s *499 opinion in Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213, 217-19 (5th Cir. 2003), upholding that decision should be reversed, and that his case should be remanded for consideration of his eligibility for cancellation of removal.

The Respondent argues correctly that a panel of this court may not reverse Mireles-Valdez absence circumstances that are not present, see United States v. Ruff, 984 F.2d 635, 640 (5th Cir. 1993), and moves for summary affirmance. Estrada’s argument that his voluntary departure to Mexico did not break his continuous physical presence in the United States is foreclosed. See Mireles-Valdez, 349 F.3d at 218.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED; MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIR-MANCE GRANTED.