Case: 18-13732 Date Filed: 07/22/2019 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-13732 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A205-006-539 VERONICA ALONSO-DIAZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (July 22, 2019) Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and GRANT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-13732 Date Filed: 07/22/2019 Page: 2 of 7 Veronica Alonso-Diaz, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a Board of Immigrations Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing her appeal from the denial of her application for cancellation of removal. Alonso-Diaz argues that the immigration judge (“IJ”) erred in determining that she was not credible and in finding that she had not met the ten-year physical-presence requirement for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. I. Alonso-Diaz entered the United States without admission or parole on an unknown date. In 2011, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) served her with a Notice to Appear, which charged her with being removable as an alien present in the United States without admission or parole. She conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal on the ground that her removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to her son, who is a United States citizen. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). Alonso-Diaz testified at her removal hearing, answering questions posed by her attorney, counsel for DHS, and the IJ. The IJ found that she was not credible in light of factual discrepancies in information she provided about her marriage and residency, contradictions between representations she made in her application for cancellation of removal and her hearing testimony, and her admission that she had used her sister’s Social Security number to file her taxes and had falsely 2 Case: 18-13732 Date Filed: 07/22/2019 Page: 3 of 7 claimed her nieces and nephews as dependent children on her tax returns. After giving little or no weight to Alonso-Diaz’s testimony and the conflicting documentation regarding the duration of her residency in the United States, the IJ denied her application for cancellation of removal because she had not met her burden of showing that she had been continuously present in the United States for ten years. As an alternative ground for denial, the IJ also found that her removal would not cause exceptional or extremely unusual hardship to a United States citizen family member. The BIA agreed with the IJ’s findings and dismissed Alonso-Diaz’s appeal, and this petition for review followed. II. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Attorney General has the discretion to cancel the removal of an alien who, among other things, has been physically present in this country continuously for at least ten years and has shown “that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to” an immediate family member who is a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A)–(D). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals