Case: 20-61125 Document: 00516268373 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 5, 2022
No. 20-61125
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Juan Ponce-Cabrales,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A089 936 965
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Juan Ponce-Cabrales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision dismissing his
appeal from the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Ponce-
Cabrales contends that BIA erred in adopting the IJ’s determinations that he
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-61125 Document: 00516268373 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2022
No. 20-61125
failed to demonstrate ten years of continuous presence in the United States
and that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship to his qualifying relatives.
We review the findings of the BIA under the substantial evidence
standard and will reverse only when the evidence compels a contrary result.
See Guerrero Trejo v. Garland, 3 F.4th 760, 774 (5th Cir. 2021). Cancellation
of removal is available to applicants who have been continuously present in
the United States for 10 or more years prior to filing an application, who can
establish good moral character during that time, who have no disqualifying
convictions, and whose spouse, children, or parent would suffer exceptional
and extremely unusual hardship if the applicant were removed. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1). Pursuant to the stop-time rule, the period of continuous
physical presence is deemed to end when an applicant is served with a notice
to appear. § 1229b(d)(1)(A).
Ponce-Cabrales was served with a Notice to Appear on October 27,
2010. During an initial hearing, Ponce-Cabrales admitted that his date of
entry was in March 2001. Moreover, he acknowledged that he was
apprehended and returned to Mexico sometime between 1999 and 2001 and
that he first filed income taxes in 2002. While he later testified that he
entered in 2000, the testimony was inconsistent with his previous admission.
Additionally, his witnesses’ assertions regarding his year of entry were not
unequivocal. Thus, the record does not compel a finding that Ponce-
Cabrales had ten years of continuous presence in the United States before
being served with a notice to appear. See Zermeno v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 514, 519-
20 (5th Cir. 2016). Because resolution of this issue is dispositive as to his lack
of eligibility for cancellation of removal, see § 1229b(b)(1), we do not consider
his argument regarding the hardship determination. See INS v. Bagamasbad,
429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not
2
Case: 20-61125 Document: 00516268373 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/05/2022
No. 20-61125
required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to
the results they reach.”)
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
3