NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 21-3045 ______________ JOSE CLEOFUS BELTRAN-LEON, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ______________ PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS (Agency No. A206-907-632) Immigration Judge: Charles M. Honeyman ______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) January 23, 2023 ______________ Before: SHWARTZ, BIBAS, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges. (Filed: January 23, 2023) ______________ OPINION ∗ ______________ ∗ This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Jose Cleofus Beltran-Leon seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his request for cancellation for removal. Because Beltran-Leon’s arguments amount to disagreements with the agency’s exercise of discretion and findings of fact, we will dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. I A Beltran-Leon, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in 1994 or 1995. In 2014, Beltran-Leon was arrested for driving under the influence and sentenced to forty-five days in jail and ninety days of house arrest. The Department of Homeland Security thereafter commenced removal proceedings, charging him with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as a noncitizen present in the United States without admission or parole. Beltran-Leon conceded his removability but requested cancellation of removal as a non-permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), and designated his United States citizen daughter, TCB, 1 as a qualifying relative. 2 1 Citing privacy reasons, Beltran-Leon uses the initials “TCB” to refer to his daughter and so we will do the same. 2 The Attorney General may cancel the removal of a non-permanent resident if the noncitizen establishes, among other things, that his “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his United States citizen child. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). 2 At his merits hearing, Beltran-Leon testified that he was employed as a machine operator and lived with his sister and her family, and that TCB, then an eighteen-year-old high school senior, lived with her United States citizen mother who works at a grocery store. Beltran-Leon testified that he saw TCB during weekend visits, and that they communicated regularly online. Each month he paid TCB’s mother $320 for child support and gave TCB approximately $100. He planned to continue supporting TCB financially until she is twenty-one years old. Beltran-Leon also testified that TCB: (1) suffers from depression and behavioral disorders; and (2) does well academically and plans to attend college but is “very aggressive” and has gotten into fights at school. AR 174-75. He testified that if he were removed to Mexico, TCB would remain in the United States with her mother, suffer financially, and continue to suffer from depression, and that his removal would therefore result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to TCB. Neither TCB nor her mother testified at the hearing, but both submitted letters. TCB’s mother wrote that Beltran-Leon supports …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals