Case ID: f-appx_387/html/0498-01.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

Quirino ESTRADA, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-60904
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 22, 2010.
    Harvey A. Schein, Schein & Esquenazi, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
    Janice Kay Redfern, Esq., Tangerlia Cox, Edward C. Durant, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

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 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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.