Martinez

Martinez v. Ashcroft

Good Law
114 F. App'x 313
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 17, 2004No. 02-73265; Agency No. A76-378-410California1,334 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Manuel Lucena Martinez (Martinez) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (BIA’s) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Because substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s determination that Martinez faded to demonstrate continuous physical presence and good moral character, we grant the petition and remand for further proceedings for a determination of whether Martinez has met the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” requirement.

I.

To qualify for cancellation of removal, a nonpermanent resident alien must have been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of at least ten years. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A). The period of continuous presence ends when the applicant is served with a Notice to Appear (NTA). § 1229b(d)(l). Martinez was served with an NTA on February 18, 1998, and thus he was required to demonstrate continuous physical presence in the United States since February 18, 1988. On the basis of a discrepancy between the testimonies of Martinez and his step-brother Jose Isabel Sandoval (Sandoval) regarding whether Martinez traveled to Mexico…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.