Case ID: f-appx_92/html/0543-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Alberto LOPEZ-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-72846.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2004.
    
    Decided March 26, 2004.
    J. Jack Artz, Esq., South Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anthony P. Nicastro, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Alberto Lopez-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence. See Molinos-Estrada, v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Lopez-Lopez failed to credibly establish ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States because the record reflects that he spent more than three months in Mexico in the ten years immediately preceding service of the notice to appear. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2). Accordingly, Lopez-Lopez is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. See id.

The Clerk is directed to stay the mandate pending the resolution of Desta v. Ashcroft, No. 03-70477 and further order of this Court.

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 provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.