Villegas-Munoz v. Garland


FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 15, 2021 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court ALFREDO VILLEGAS-MUNOZ, Petitioner, v. Nos. 19-9581 & 20-9607 (Petition for Review) MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, ∗ Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT ** _________________________________ Before HOLMES, MATHESON, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Alfredo Villegas-Munoz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of (1) his application for cancellation of removal (Case No. 19-9581) and (2) his motion to reconsider and reopen his application for voluntary departure (Case No. 20-9607). ∗ On March 11, 2021, Merrick B. Garland became Attorney General of the United States. Consequently, his name has been substituted for Robert M. Wilkinson 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. We dismiss his petition in Case No. 19-9581 and deny his petition in Case No. 20-9607. I. Background Mr. Villegas entered the United States unlawfully in 1999. He is married to another Mexican citizen with no legal status in the United States, with whom he has four United States citizen children and one older noncitizen child. The Department of Homeland Security instituted removal proceedings against Mr. Villegas in 2012 for being present without admission or parole. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). He conceded removability and applied for two forms of discretionary relief: cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), and voluntary departure under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c. To qualify for cancellation of removal, Mr. Villegas had to show that he was physically present in the United States for the ten years immediately preceding his application; he had been a person of good moral character during that time; he had not been convicted of any disqualifying crimes; and his “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his qualifying relatives (namely, his United States citizen children). See § 1229b(b)(1)(A)-(D). To qualify for voluntary departure, Mr. Villegas had to show that he was physically present in the United States for the year immediately preceding the service of his notice to appear; he had been a person of good moral character for the five years preceding his application; he was not deportable for a listed reason; and 2 he had the means to depart the United States and intended to do so. See § 1229c(b)(1)(A)-(D). Mr. Villegas and his wife and son testified at the hearing before the …

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