
    Walter Camilo LOPEZ-DIAZ Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States Respondent
    No. 16-3106
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 29, 2017
    Filed: April 3, 2017
    Walter Camilo Lopez-Diaz, Pro Se
    Karen Yolanda Drummond, Julie M. Iv-ersen, Trial Attorney, Carl H. McIntyre, Robert Michael Stalzer, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Oil Oil, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . Jefferson B. Sessions, III has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).
    
   PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Walter Camilo Lopez-Diaz petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) to deny his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (permitting cancellation of removal for alien (1) physically present in the United States continuously for at least 10 years immediately preceding application, (2) with good moral character during that period, (3) not convicted of certain offenses, and (4) whose removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to certain qualifying relatives). As relevant, the IJ found that Lopez-Diaz failed to establish his continuous presence in the United States, the requisite hardship to his qualifying relatives, and good moral character. Lopez-Diaz claims only that the agency’s continuous-physical-presence finding was erroneous, contending that an unspecified witness affidavit and his untimely-filed income tax returns were not accorded credible weight. He makes no argument challenging the IJ’s findings regarding hardship or moral character. Under the conjunctive language of section 1229b(b)(1), Lopez-Diaz had to meet all four prerequisites for cancellation of removal; thus, the unchallenged findings are dispositive of the matter before us.

The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.  