Summary Calendar GODELEVA HUERTA v. John Ashcroft, Us Attorney General

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
September 14, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-60015
Summary Calendar
GODELEVA HUERTA
Petitioner
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT, US ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A78-126-972
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Godeleva Huerta petitions this court for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA’s) denial of cancellation of
removal. She argues that the BIA erred when it determined that
her continuous physical presence in the United States was
interrupted in July 2000 for purposes of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1)(A). As the respondent argues, the BIA implicitly
decided Huerta’s appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(5), which
authorizes a single board member to issue a brief order

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-60015
-2-
affirming, modifying, or remanding the immigration judge’s
decision.
This court has jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order. 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. Huerta’s
voluntary departure from the United States at the border
interrupted the continuous-presence requirement for cancellation
of removal. See Mireles-Valdez, 349 F.3d at 217-19.
The Respondent’s motion for summary affirmance or in the
alternative for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --