¶1 Godeleva Huerta petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA’s) denial of cancellation of removal. She argues that the BIA erred when it determined that her continuous physical presence in the United States was interrupted in July 2000 for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A). As the respondent argues, the BIA implicitly decided Huerta’s appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(5), which authorizes a single board member to issue a brief order affirming, modifying, or remanding the immigration judge’s decision.
¶2 This court has jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order. See Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213, 217 (5th Cir.2003). To be eligible for a discretionary cancellation of removal, an alien must satisfy four requirements, one of which is 10 years of continuous physical presence in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A); Mireles-Valdez, 349 F.3d at 214-15. Huerta’s voluntary departure from the United States at the border interrupted the continuous-presence requirement for cancellation of removal. See Mireles-Valdez, 349 F.3d at 217-19.
¶3 The Respondent’s motion for summary affirmance or in the alternative for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.
¶4 PETITION DENIED.