Appellate Case: 20-9587 Document: 010110689996 Date Filed: 05/27/2022 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 27, 2022 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court JUANA COSTILLA BARRIOS, Petitioner, v. No. 20-9587 (Petition for Review) MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HOLMES and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Petitioner Juana Costilla Barrios, a Mexican national, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the denial of her application for cancellation of removal. Because we lack jurisdiction to review either issue Petitioner raises, we dismiss the petition for review. * 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 20-9587 Document: 010110689996 Date Filed: 05/27/2022 Page: 2 I. Background Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. She entered the United States illegally in 1992 at the age of sixteen. She has five children who were born here. In 2013, the Department of Homeland Security charged Petitioner with being removable. She conceded removability (as a noncitizen who was present without being admitted or paroled) but applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).1 She asserted her removal to Mexico would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her five United States citizen children, all of whom, as of 2013, were under the age of twenty-one. In 2018, an immigration judge (IJ) held a hearing on her application. By that time, only two of Petitioner’s children were under the age of twenty-one—her youngest son was fourteen and her second youngest son was twenty. The IJ denied Petitioner’s application at the end of the hearing. He first explained that only the two youngest children could serve as qualifying relatives for purposes of assessing the statutory hardship requirement because the “older children have turned 21 since [Petitioner] filed her [cancellation] application and no longer qualify as children as that term is defined in the Act.” R. at 81-82. He then concluded Petitioner had not met her burden of showing that her removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her two youngest sons. 1 To be eligible for cancellation of removal as a non-permanent resident, Petitioner needed to show, inter alia, that her “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a spouse, parent, or child, who is a United States citizen. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). 2 Appellate Case: 20-9587 Document: 010110689996 Date Filed: 05/27/2022 Page: 3 Petitioner appealed to the BIA. She argued …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals