Case Name: Juan Carlos Ramirez ANDRADE, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-18
Citations: 332 F. App'x 978
Docket Number: No. 08-60517
Parties: Juan Carlos Ramirez ANDRADE, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 978–978

Head Matter:
Juan Carlos Ramirez ANDRADE, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-60517
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 18, 2009.
J. Joseph Reina, Reina & Bates Immigration Law Group, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, John Clifford Cunningham, Remi Adalemo, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Kristi Barrows, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Dallas, TX, for Respondent.
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Juan Carlos Ramirez Andrade appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals's (BIA's) decision denying his applications for adjustment of status and cancellation of removal. Andrade first argues that, as an Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 245(i) applicant, he is exempt from INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), and is thus statutorily eligible to seek adjustment of status. This argument is foreclosed by Mortera-Cruz v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 246, 254-56 (5th Cir.2005).
Andrade additionally argues that he is statutorily eligible for cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l), because his 1998 encounter with immigration officials did not end his accrual of continuous physical presence. It was Andrade's burden to establish 10 years of continuous physical presence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d). Given the lack of evidence regarding the circumstances of his 1998 departure on account of his purposeful deception, as well as his three-hour detention and questioning prior to his departure, substantial evidence supports the immigration judge's finding that Andrade did not carry his burden of proof on this issue and is thus ineligible for cancellation of removal. See Garcia-Melendez v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 657, 661 (5th Cir.2003).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.