FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 22, 2020 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court ALEJANDRO MORENO VILLEGAS, Petitioner, v. No. 19-9588 (Petition for Review) WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before HARTZ, McHUGH, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Petitioner Alejandro Moreno Villegas, a Mexican national, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Most of the petition challenges the BIA’s discretionary hardship determination, which we lack jurisdiction to consider. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition in part for lack of jurisdiction. To the extent the * 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. petition asserts that Petitioner’s due-process rights were violated because the BIA failed to properly evaluate the evidence, we deny the petition for review. I Petitioner entered the United States in 2000 and has remained here since. In 2017 the government issued him a notice to appear in removal proceedings, charging that he was present in this country without having been lawfully admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Petitioner conceded the charge and applied for cancellation of removal. Cancellation of removal is a form of discretionary relief that requires a noncitizen to show, 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.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).1 Petitioner predicated his application on the hardship facing his four children, all of whom are U.S. citizens. He testified before an immigration judge (IJ) as follows: His children were ages 15, 13, 9, and 5. His two eldest children, A.G. and J.G., attended a preparatory academy and had seen a therapist. He had told the therapist that his eldest son, A.G., was not working as hard at school, he would come home from school and sleep, and he would not eat. He also saw changes in his daughter, J.G., who seemed distracted. His third child, D.G., attended the same school and had “been acting up with 1 An applicant must also show he was 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 was not convicted of any disqualifying crimes. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A)-(C). If the applicant makes this showing, he must persuade the Attorney General to favorably exercise his discretion ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals