Case ID: f-appx_136/html/0674-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Minerva DELGADO-CASTANEDA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-60514.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided June 24, 2005.
    Elizabeth M. Mendoza Macias, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    David Y. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Andrew Cunningham MacLachlan, Eric Warren Marsteller, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Hipólito Acosta, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Houston, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, U.S. Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Minerva Delgado-Castañeda petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA’s) denial of cancellation of removal. Delgado-Castañeda argues that the BIA erred when it determined that her 1993 voluntary departure from this country following a visit to Mexico interrupted her ten years continuous physical presence in the United States.

The Respondent has filed a motion for a summary disposition.

This court has jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order. See Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213, 217 (5th Cir.2003). To be eligible for a discretionary cancellation of removal, an alien must satisfy four requirements, one of which is 10 years of continuous physical presence in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Mireles-Valdez, 349 F.3d at 214-15. Delgado’s voluntary departure from the United States at the border in 1993 interrupted her continuous presence. See MirelesValdez, 349 F.3d at 217-19.

The Respondent’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.