context: Because Vasquez-Rivera's failure to demonstrate continuous physical presence is dispositive, we need not reach his contentions regarding the IJ's hardship determination.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 327 F.3d 887, 889
citation_a.parenthetical: "[cjancellation of removal ... is based on statutory predicates that must first be met"
citation_a.sentence: See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir.2003) (“[cjancellation of removal ... is based on statutory predicates that must first be met”); cf. Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that where requirements for relief “are conjunctive, failure to meet any one of them is fatal”). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Vasquez-Rivera did not merit voluntary departure.
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 287 F.3d 758, 760
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that where requirements for relief "are conjunctive, failure to meet any one of them is fatal"
citation_b.sentence: See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir.2003) (“[cjancellation of removal ... is based on statutory predicates that must first be met”); cf. Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that where requirements for relief “are conjunctive, failure to meet any one of them is fatal”). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Vasquez-Rivera did not merit voluntary departure.