Jobe v. Keisler , 242 F. App'x 910 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1193
FATOU JOBE,
Petitioner,
versus
PETER D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A72-166-791)
Submitted: September 14, 2007 Decided: September 27, 2007
Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edwin K. Fogam, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle Gorden Latour,
Assistant Director, Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Fatou Jobe, a native and citizen of The Gambia, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s finding
that she was not eligible for cancellation of removal because she
failed to show continuous ten year presence in the United States.
We deny the petition for review.
The Attorney General may cancel removal of an alien who
is deportable from the United States if the alien: (1) has been
physically present in the United States for a continuous period of
not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such
application; (2) has been a person of good moral character during
such period; (3) has not been convicted of certain enumerated
offenses; and (4) establishes that removal would result in
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse,
parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien
lawfully admitted for permanent residence. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)
(2000). The applicant bears the burden of showing eligibility for
cancellation of removal. Tapia v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 997, 997-98
(9th Cir. 2005). Under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (West 2005),
“the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.” We find the evidence does not compel a different
result.
- 2 -
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -