Walter Lopez-Diaz v. Loretta E. Lynch

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-3106
___________________________
Walter Camilo Lopez-Diaz
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner
v.
Jefferson B. Sessions, III,1 Attorney General of the United States
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: March 29, 2017
Filed: April 3, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
1
Jefferson B. Sessions, III has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of
the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 43(c).
Guatemalan citizen Walter Camilo Lopez-Diaz petitions for review of an order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting the decision of an immigration judge
(IJ) to deny his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)
(permitting cancellation of removal for alien (1) physically present in the United
States continuously for at least 10 years immediately preceding application, (2) with
good moral character during that period, (3) not convicted of certain offenses, and (4)
whose removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to certain
qualifying relatives). As relevant, the IJ found that Lopez-Diaz failed to establish his
continuous presence in the United States, the requisite hardship to his qualifying
relatives, and good moral character. Lopez-Diaz claims only that the agency’s
continuous-physical-presence finding was erroneous, contending that an unspecified
witness affidavit and his untimely-filed income tax returns were not accorded credible
weight. He makes no argument challenging the IJ’s findings regarding hardship or
moral character. Under the conjunctive language of section 1229b(b)(1), Lopez-Diaz
had to meet all four prerequisites for cancellation of removal; thus, the unchallenged
findings are dispositive of the matter before us.
The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-