FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 15, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 37 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 28 -5 90 -5 09
CESARIO DEJ ESUS REYES-MORALES, a.k .a. Ses ari o De J es us Reyes Mu ral le s, a.k .a. Ces ar An ib al Reyes Mu ral le s, Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 15 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, W ILSON an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Ces ari o An ib al Reyes-Mu ral le s, a Gua te m al annati on al , pet it io ns for 1
rev ie w of the Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’s (“ BIA”) ord er d is m is si ng hi s ap pe al fro m anim m ig rat io n ju dg e’s (“ IJ ”) d en ia l o f hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r sp eci al rul e can cel la ti on of r em ov al un de r § 2 03 of t he Nica rag ua n a ndCen tra l Am eri can Rel ie f Actof 1 99 7 (“NACARA”). Pub . L. No. 10 5- 10 0, 1 11 Sta t. 2 16 0, 2 19 6– 99 2 (1 99 7) . W e h av e juri sd ic ti on un de r 8 U.S.C . § 1 25 2. 3 To es tabl is h h is eli gi bi li ty for s pe ci al rul e can cel lati on of r em ov al un de r th e NACARA, Reyes-Mu ral le s b ears th e b ur de n o f sh owi ng , in te r a li a , th athe ha s be enco nt in ua ll y

pre se ntinth e Uni te d S ta te s fo r th e se ve n years p rece di ng th e di sp os it io n o f hi s ap pl ic at io n— in th is cas e, 20 02 –0 9. Se e 8 C .F.R. § 4
This case is docketed unde r the name “Cesa rio DeJesus Reyes-Morales,” but the 1 petitioner has c larified that his name is “Cesario Anibal Reyes-Muralles.” Section 203 of the NA CARA allows nationals of ce rtain countrie s to apply for spe cial 2 rule c ance llation of removal, pr ovided they filed asy lum applications with the I NS on or befor e April 1, 1990 and mee t cer tain other c onditions. Notwithstanding § 1252’ s jurisdiction-stripping provision pre cludingjudicial revie w of 3 discretionar

y BIA deter

minations, § 1252(a)(2) (B ), we have jurisdiction to review the B oard’ s non-discre tionary

deter mination here- at-issue: whe ther Reyes-Mura lles has satisfied the NACARA’s continuous-pr esenc e re quirement. See Al Najjar v. Ashcroft , 257 F.3d 1262, 1298 (11th Cir. 2001) (e valuatingthe statutory prede cessor

of the re quirement a

t issue and deter

mining it was not a “discr etionary decision” w ithin the scope of the jurisdiction-stripping provision); Gonzalez-Orope

za v. U.S. Att’y

Gen. , 321 F.3d 1331, 1332 ( 11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (applying Al Najjar

to the curr ent statute). Notwithstanding 8 U .S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)’s stop-time provision, the B IA has interpr eted 4 the continuous-pre sencerequire ment to apply to the seven year s prec edingthe final administrative disposition of an application for specia l rule ca

ncellation of r emoval. See I n re Garcia , 24 I . & N . Dec . 179, 183 (B IA 2007). We ar e bound to follow ag encie s’ re asonable 212 40 .66 (b )(2 ). He m us t d o s o b y

a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce. 8 C.F.R. § 12 40 .64 (a). Th e IJde te rm in edReyes-Mu ral le s fa il edto m eetth is bu rd en , andth e BIA ag reed , di sm is si ng hi s ad m in is tra ti ve ap pe al . Rey es -Mu ral le s cl ai m s thi s was erro r. W e rev ie w th e BIA’s co nt in uo us -p res en ce d et erm in at io n u nd er the
subs tant ia l-e vi de nc e te st , eva lu at in g wh ethe r th e rec or d a s a wh ol e supp orts th e de ci si on with “ reas on ab le , subs tant ia l, an d p ro ba ti ve ev id en ce.” Al Na jj ar v. 5 Ash cr of t , 25 7 F .3d12 62 , 12 83 –8 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . Und er thi s t es t, we v ie w “ th e reco rdev id en ce i n the li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e ag en cy ’s dec is io n,” an d we wi ll
on ly rever se th e fi nd in gs of the ag en cy when th e rec or d e vi de nc e co m pe ls th at res ul t. Ade

fe mi v. As hc ro

ft , 38 6 F .3d10 22 , 10 27 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (enba nc ). In th is cas e, th ere i s n o s uc h c om pu ls io n. The B IA’s co nc lu si on is supp orte d b y subs tant ia l ev id en ce. ReyesMu ral le s’s h eari ng tes ti m on y co nt ai ne d s ev eral in co ns is te nc ie s, l ead in g the IJ t o fin d tha t h e was no t “ fu ll y cred ib le .” Furth erm or e, de sp it e h is cla im th athe ha s res id edinth e Uni te d S ta te s fo r de cad es , Rey es -Mu ral le s o ffer edsca ntev id en ce t o interpre tations of the statutes they areentrusted to administer. Chevron U.S.A., I nc. v. Natural Res. De f. Council, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837, 843–44, 104 S. C t. 2778 (1984); Lin v. U.S. Atty. Gen. , 555 F.3d 1310, 1316 n.4 ( 11th Cir. 2009). We reviewthe B IA’s dec ision as the final judgment, unless the B IA expressly adopted 5 the I J ’s dec ision. Ruiz v. Gonzales , 479 F.3d 762, 765 ( 11th Cir. 2007). 3co rro bo rat e h is co nt in uo us pre se nc e in th e co un try durin g the ti m e p eri odin

qu es ti on . The BI A sp eci fic al ly foundth athe fai le d t o o ffer“ an y co nt em po ran eo us do cu m en ta ti on ” fro m

th e y ears inqu es ti on . Con tra ry to th atfin di ng , ho wev er, the
reco rdsh ows Reyes-Mu ral le s d idoff er s om e d oc um en ta ti on actua ll y ge ne rat ed du rin g thi s t im e p eri od , in cl ud in g aFlo rid a driv er’s l ic en se is su edin20 04 an d th ree “ 10 99 ” ta x fo rm s i ss ue d fr om hi s emplo y er i n the y ears 20 05 , 20 06 , and 20 08 . Neverth el es s, we cann otsay tha t, wh enco up le d wi th th e IJ ’s cred ib il ity de te rm in at io n, thi s ev id en ce co m pe ls th e co nc lu si on th atReyes-Mu ral le s de m on st rat edhi s co nt in uo us pre se nc e in th e Uni te d S ta te s b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce. Co ns eque nt ly, we m us t d en y hi s p et it io n. Reyes-M ur al le s al so ass ert s tha t the adm in is tra ti ve pro ceed in gs were pr oc edur al ly defi ci en t, cl ai m in g the IJ e nf or ceda cl ear- an d- co nv in ci ng ev id en ti ary bu rd enag ai ns t h im , in st eadof t he ap pr op ria te pre po nd eran ce s tand ard . Becau se Reyes-M ur al le s fa il edto ex haus t h is adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s wi th res pe ctto th es e cl ai m s, we ar e wit ho utjuri sd ic ti on to en te rta in th em . 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (d ). Thi s la ckof ju ris di ct io n e xt en ds to Reyes-Mu ral le s’s p ro cedur al -due -p ro ces s cl ai m . Se e Amay a-

Art un du ag a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 46 3 F .3d12 47 , 12 51 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m). Acco rd in gl y , hi s cl ai m s o f pr oc edur al de fectare d is m is se d.

4Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, Re y es -Mu ral le s’s p et it io n fo r rev ie w of the

BIA’s fi na l o rd er i s d is m is se d i n p artan d d en ie d i n p art . DISMI SSED I N PART, DENIED I N PART
.

5