Marcos de la Cruz-Flores v. Merrick B. Garland

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 22a0301n.06 No. 21-4003 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jul 22, 2022 ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk MARCOS DE LA CRUZ-FLORES, ) Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM v. ) THE UNITED STATES BOARD OF ) IMMIGRATION APPEALS MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, ) Respondent. ) ) Before: BOGGS, LARSEN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. BOGGS, Circuit Judge. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed an immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal. Marcos de la Cruz-Flores now petitions for review. Because we lack jurisdiction to review the immigration judge’s factual findings and the Board correctly applied the law to the facts of his case, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition. I. Background Petitioner Marcos de la Cruz-Flores is a Mexican national who entered the United States in 1994. He has lived here continuously since then other than a brief departure around 2000. De la Cruz has four children: three with his first wife and one with his current wife. All four children are United States citizens. In 2014, the Department of Homeland Security issued de la Cruz a notice to appear for removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). He applied for nonpermanent cancellation of removal in 2015 and again, with an updated application, in 2019. Both he and his 21-4003, De la Cruz-Flores v. Garland wife testified before an immigration judge at an individual merits hearing. During that testimony, de la Cruz explained how he has maintained stable employment since his arrival in Kentucky and has ultimately been able to own and operate a food-truck business. He also explained that he and his first wife separated in 2007. They informally agreed that their three children would live with her and that de la Cruz would pay $600 a month in child support. Due to his work schedule, he is only able to spend time with the children on Mondays. De la Cruz also has an infant son with his current wife. She testified that the two of them live with her parents. Because she, her father, and de la Cruz all work full time, her mother takes care of the child. The immigration judge denied de la Cruz’s request for cancellation of removal.1 He first held that de la Cruz had satisfied the continuous-physical-presence requirement by remaining in the United States for the past 10 years and did not have any disqualifying convictions. He then held that de la Cruz had not demonstrated the requisite good moral character because of several traffic offenses and alcohol-related offenses, including a DUI in 2014. He also held that de la Cruz had not demonstrated that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship 1 The statute governing discretionary cancellation of removal lays out four requirements that a nonpermanent resident must meet. It reads, in pertinent part: The Attorney General may cancel removal of, and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals