FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 14, 2021 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court HECTOR SANTILLAN-BORRAYO, a/k/a Hector M. Santillan-Borrayo, a/k/a Hector Santillan, Petitioner, v. No. 20-9584 (Petition for Review) MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, ∗ Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT ** _________________________________ Before HARTZ, BRISCOE, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Hector Santillan-Borrayo (Petitioner), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the denial of ∗ On March 11, 2021, Merrick B. Garland became Attorney General of the United States. Consequently, his name has been substituted for William P. Barr as Respondent, per Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). ** 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). We dismiss his petition in part and deny it in part. BACKGROUND In 2017 the government issued Petitioner a notice to appear in removal proceedings, charging that he was present in the country without having been lawfully admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). He conceded the charge and applied for cancellation of removal—a form of discretionary relief that requires an alien to show, among other things, that “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen [or lawful permanent resident] of the United States.” Id. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). Petitioner, his wife, and their two-year-old daughter, Naomi, unlawfully entered the United States in 2002. While in the United States, Petitioner and his wife had three more children—J.S., born in 2003; H.S., born in 2005; and M.S., born in 2009. At a hearing before an immigration judge (IJ), Petitioner, his wife, and Naomi testified. Petitioner and his wife testified that she would be unable to earn enough money to support the children on her own and that the family would therefore join him if he was removed to Mexico. Petitioner contended that consequently his removal would result in hardship to his family, especially his three citizen children. The IJ acknowledged that Petitioner offered evidence that the family’s relocation would cause “significant economic loss” and “loss of educational opportunities” for the younger children; and he noted the family’s “concern[s] about 2 the violence and dangers in Mexico.” R. vol. 1 at 95. Regarding the economic consequences of removal, Petitioner and his wife testified that they did not have any savings, and their extended family in Mexico would be unable …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals