Rodriguez Romero v. Garland


Appellate Case: 21-9515 Document: 010110621236 Date Filed: 12/20/2021 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT December 20, 2021 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court MARCO TULIO RODRIGUEZ ROMERO, Petitioner, No. 21-9515 v. (Petition for Review) MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before HARTZ, BACHARACH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Marco Tulio Rodriguez Romero, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) upholding the immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition in part for lack of jurisdiction and deny the remainder as moot. * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. Appellate Case: 21-9515 Document: 010110621236 Date Filed: 12/20/2021 Page: 2 BACKGROUND In 2002 Mr. Romero entered the United States without being admitted or paroled after inspection and settled in Colorado. In addition to fathering three United States-citizen children, he accrued three Colorado misdemeanor criminal convictions—2012 and 2014 convictions for driving under the influence, and a 2014 conviction for an offense apparently referred to commonly as harassment (strike/shove/kick). Shortly after his 2014 convictions the government commenced removal proceedings, prompting Mr. Romero to apply for cancellation of removal. The immigration judge denied the application, finding that he did not meet the requirements of showing (1) he was “a person of good moral character” for the ten years preceding the application, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(B), and (2) his children would experience “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” from his removal, id. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). The Board agreed with the immigration judge on both points and dismissed the appeal. DISCUSSION Mr. Romero challenges the moral-character and extreme-hardship decisions, both directly and by attacking the agency’s credibility finding. We need examine only the arguments relevant to hardship, because that finding is determinative. Congress has limited our review of the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), “no court shall have jurisdiction to review . . . any judgment regarding the granting of relief under” certain sections, 2 Appellate Case: 21-9515 Document: 010110621236 Date Filed: 12/20/2021 Page: 3 including § 1229b. “Our court reads [§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)] as denying jurisdiction to review the discretionary aspects of a decision concerning cancellation of removal under § 1229b(b)(1),” including “the determination of whether the petitioner’s removal from the United States would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).” Galeano-Romero v. …

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