United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 17, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60849
Summary Calendar
JOSE JAVIER FUENTES-GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A76-836-429
--------------------
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose Javier Fuentes-Gonzalez petitions for review of an order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration
Judge’s decision to deny his application for cancellation of
removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act. He argues that
this court has jurisdiction to review the denial of his application
for cancellation of removal and that “the BIA failed to properly
consider facts bearing on [his] individual circumstances and failed
to state its reasons for its conclusory and generic decision.”
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
We have previously approved of the BIA’s authority to affirm
the Immigration Judge’s decision without giving additional reasons.
See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832 (5th Cir. 2003). When,
as in this case, the BIA affirms without opinion, this court has
jurisdiction to review the Immigration Judge’s determination that
the petitioner did not amass 10 years of continuous physical
presence in the United States as required for cancellation of
removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1129b(b)(1)(A). Mireles-Valdez v.
Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213, 215, 217 (5th Cir. 2003). The Immigration
Judge determined that Fuentes’ testimony regarding when he arrived
in the United States was not credible. We will not disturb this
credibility determination. See Garcia-Melendez v. Ashcroft,
351 F.3d 657, 662 (5th Cir. 2003). There was substantial evidence
to support the Immigration Judge’s determination that Fuentes did
not amass the 10 years of continuous physical presence in the
United States as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1129b(b)(1)(A).
We do not have jurisdiction to review the Immigration Judge’s
determination that Fuentes’ children would not suffer an
“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if they were deported
to Mexico. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D); 8 U.S.C.
1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Bravo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 590, 592 (5th Cir.
2003). Accordingly, Fuentes’ petition for review is DENIED.
2