#### Jose Gustavo Salinas ORDONEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, United States Attorney General, Respondent.

16-1586

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 17, 2017

FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Osakwe, Hartford, CT.

FOR RESPONDENT: Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General; John S. Hogan, Assistant Director; David H. Wetmore, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, PETER W. HALL, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Jose Gustavo Salinas Ordo-nez, a native and citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a May 3, 2016, decision of the BIA, affirming a January 6, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge (“U”) denying Ordonez’s application for cancellation of removal and ordering him removed to Ecuador. *In re Jose Gustavo Salinas Ordonez,*No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. May 3, 2016), *aff'g*No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. Hartford Jan. 6, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ “for the sake of completeness.” *Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,*448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the IJ’s factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law *de novo.*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); *Yanqin Weng v. Holder,*562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). Although our jurisdiction to review the denials of discretionary relief is limited, we retain jurisdiction to review whether an applicant has met the continuous presence requirement. *See Mendez v. Holder,*566 F.3d 316, 320-22 (2d Cir. 2009); *see also Hernandez v. Holder,*736 F.3d 234, 236-37 (2d Cir. 2013). We review the agency’s continuous presence determination analyzing whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence and was decided in accordance with law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); *Hernandez,*736 F.3d at 236-37.

Ordonez, who is not a lawful permanent resident, must demonstrate eligibility for *731cancellation of removal by establishing, among other things, that he “has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years” at the time the Notice to Appear is served. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A), (d)(1). Here, because the Notice to Appear was served in February 2013, Ordonez had to prove that he was in the United States as of February 2003. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A), (d)(1) (ten-year physical presence requirement); *id.*§ 1229a(c)(4)(A) (“An alien applying for relief or protection from removal has the burden of proof.”). We conclude that Ordo-nez failed to meet his burden.

Ordonez maintained that he entered the United States in May 2000. The only evidence he offered to corroborate that date was a notarized letter from his friend, Luis Arevalo, reflecting that he and Ordonez lived in the same apartment building “since his arrival in 2000” until 2006. Are-valo’s testimony, however, was inconsistent with his letter, reflecting that he and Or-donez began living in the same building in 2002. When asked to explain this discrepancy, Arevalo replied that he knew *of*Or-donez in 2000 but only began living in the same building in 2002. Because these inconsistencies called into question Arevalo’s veracity, it was reasonable for the agency to afford diminished weight to Arevalo’s letter and testimony, which was the only evidence to corroborate Ordonez’s presence in the United States before February 2003. *See Y.C. v. Holder,*741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013) (‘We defer to the agency’s determination of the weight afforded to an alien’s documentary evidence.”) (citations omitted).

The remaining evidence corroborates Ordonez’s presence only as early as September 2003, as indicated by his Ecuadorian passport renewal. For these reasons, the agency did not err in finding that Ordonez failed to meet his burden showing ten years of continuous physical presence preceding the February 2013 Notice to Appear. *See*8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(b)(4)(B), 1229b(b)(l)(A), (d)(1), 1229a(c)(4)(A).

We have considered Ordonez’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.