FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 26, 2020 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court PABLO SALDIVAR COLON, Petitioner, v. No. 19-9558 (Petition for Review) WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before HOLMES, PHILLIPS, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Pablo Saldivar Colon, a Mexican national, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. For the following reasons, we deny the petition for review. I In 2014, the Department of Homeland Security issued Mr. Saldivar a Notice to Appear in removal proceedings, charging that he entered the United States in 1997 * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. without lawful admission or parole. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Mr. Saldivar conceded the charge but applied for cancellation of removal. This is a form of discretionary relief available to a non-citizen who demonstrates, among other things, that his “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to [his] spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States.” Id. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). 1 To support his application, Mr. Saldivar testified before an immigration judge (IJ) that he was married with two U.S. citizen children. His claim of hardship focused on his twelve-year old son who was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). He indicated his son was being treated with medication that may not be available in Mexico. He also testified that if he was ordered to be removed, he and his wife would relocate with their son to Mexico, and although they had some assets to assist with the transition, they could not maintain the same standard of living for their son. Mr. Saldivar owns a construction company, and he explained that between his income and his wife’s earnings from cleaning houses, they had managed to save approximately $237,000. He testified that they had also built a home valued at approximately $187,000, with nearly $67,000 in equity, and they owned several cars, construction equipment, and a boat he purchased for 1 A non-citizen must also show he has been physically present in the United States for the ten years preceding his application, he was a person of good moral character during that time, and he has not been convicted of any disqualifying criminal offenses. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A)-(C). If a non-citizen satisfies the statutory criteria, he must then persuade the Attorney General to favorably exercise ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals