Quirino Estrada v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-60904 (5th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 09-60904 Document: 00511182735 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/22/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 09-60904 Summary Calendar July 22, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk QUIRINO ESTRADA, Petitioner v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A089 536 676 Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Quirino Estrada, a native and citizen of Mexico, has filed a petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge s pretermission and denial of his application for cancellation of removal under INA §240A(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Estrada s sole argument on appeal is that In re Romalez-Alcaide, 23 I. & N. Dec. 423, 42429 (BIA 2002), was decided incorrectly, that this court s opinion in Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213, 217-19 (5th Cir. 2003), upholding that * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. Case: 09-60904 Document: 00511182735 Page: 2 No. 09-60904 Date Filed: 07/22/2010 decision should be reversed, and that his case should be remanded for consideration of his eligibility for cancellation of removal. The Respondent argues correctly that a panel of this court may not reverse Mireles-Valdez absence circumstances that are not present, see United States v. Ruff, 984 F.2d 635, 640 (5th Cir. 1993), and moves for summary affirmance. Estrada s argument that his voluntary departure to Mexico did not break his continuous physical presence in the United States is foreclosed. See MirelesValdez, 349 F.3d at 218. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED; MOTION AFFIRMANCE GRANTED. 2 FOR SUMMARY

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.