NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 21-2200 ___________ DANIEL REYES-LOPEZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA No. A216-647-445) U.S. Immigration Judge: Nicholas A. Martz ______________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) April 11, 2022 Before: AMBRO, SCIRICA, and TRAXLER*, Circuit Judges. (Filed: May 17, 2022) ________________ OPINION** ________________ * Honorable William Traxler, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting by designation ** This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. SCIRICA, Circuit Judge Petitioner Daniel Reyes-Lopez, a Mexican citizen, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Because the BIA applied the correct legal standards as to whether Reyes-Lopez’s removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to Reyes-Lopez’s children, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of Reyes-Lopez’s application for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, we will deny Reyes-Lopez’s petition. I. Reyes-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, has been living in the United States since 2007. In October 2020, Reyes-Lopez was charged with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).1 Reyes-Lopez conceded removability as charged but requested cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1299b(b).2 1 “An alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrives in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General, is inadmissible.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). 2 Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), the Attorney General may cancel the removal of a noncitizen who is removable from the United States if the noncitizen: 2 On December 14, 2020, the immigration judge denied Reyes-Lopez’s application for cancellation of removal. The only issue in dispute was whether Reyes-Lopez’s two United States citizen children, Elias and Etai, would experience “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if Reyes-Lopez were removed to Mexico. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(D). Regarding this requirement for cancellation of removal, the immigration judge found that Reyes-Lopez’s children would not experience hardship substantially beyond the ordinary hardship expected when a close family member is required to leave the country. Reyes-Lopez appealed the immigration judge’s decision to the BIA. On May 21, 2021, the BIA dismissed Reyes-Lopez’s appeal, concluding that the immigration judge had properly considered the evidence in the aggregate and that Reyes- Lopez had not met his burden of demonstrating his children would experience exceptional and extremely unusual hardship were he removed. Reyes-Lopez petitioned for review to this Court. (A) has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application; (B) has been a person of good moral character during such period; (C) has not been convicted of an offense under section 1182(a)(2), 1227(a)(2), or 1227(a)(3) of this title, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals