Walter Lopez-Diaz v. Loretta E. Lynch, No. 16-3106 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Before Wollman, Bowman and Loken, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The IJ did not err in determining that petitioner failed to establish the continuous presence in the U.S. necessary to qualify for cancellation of removal.
Download PDF
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for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: March 29, 2017 Filed: April 3, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.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-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
