Case ID: f-appx_90/html/0081-01.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

Maria Luz MATA-ARZOLA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-60781.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 24, 2004.
    Paul S. Zoltán, Law Office of Paul S Zoltán, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
    David V. Bernal, Julia Katherine Doig, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Anne M. Estrada, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, Dallas, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    John Ashcroft, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Maria Luz Mata-Arzola (Mata) petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) denial of her request for cancellation of removal. She argues that the BIA erred when it determined that her continuous physical presence in the United States terminated in February 1993 when she departed the United States under threat of institution of removal proceedings.

This court has jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order denying cancellation of removal. 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. The Attorney General has determined that voluntary departure under the threat of removal proceedings interrupts continuous presence. See Mireles-Valdez, 349 F.3d at 218. This court has upheld the Attorney General’s determination. See id.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.