Case: 17-14556 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-14556 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A073-710-551 GHEORGHE VOICU, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (July 10, 2018) Before NEWSOM, HULL, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-14556 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 Page: 2 of 6 Gheorghe Voicu petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Specifically, he challenges the BIA’s discretionary determination that he failed to show that his daughter would suffer “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if he were removed. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. 1 I Voicu is a native and citizen of Romania who entered the United States in 1994 on a non-immigrant visa that expired that same year, and he has remained ever since. His daughter, Michelle Alice Voicu, was born in the United States in 2002. In 2007, the Department of Homeland Security issued Voicu a notice to appear, which charged him as removable for overstaying his non-immigrant visa, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). At a hearing before an IJ, Voicu conceded removability. He later applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Voicu alleged in his application that his removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” on his daughter, who is a U.S. citizen. In support of that application, he submitted a report from a clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst, who concluded that if Voicu’s daughter were 1 We review de novo questions of subject matter jurisdiction. Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2006). 2 Case: 17-14556 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 Page: 3 of 6 separated from her father, she would develop Separation Anxiety Disorder and would be deprived of the special education classes available to her in the United States. An IJ denied Voicu’s application for cancellation of removal because he determined that Voicu did not demonstrate that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his daughter. The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s determination that Voicu failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his daughter, but remanded because Voicu had not received proper notice regarding a voluntary departure bond. On remand, Voicu submitted an updated application for cancellation of removal. In support of that application, Voicu submitted various documents and testimony reflecting that his daughter had experienced seizures. The IJ again concluded that Voicu had failed to demonstrate that his daughter would suffer extreme and exceptionally unusual hardship as a result of his removal. In particular, he found that although there was evidence that Voicu’s daughter suffered from various symptoms and had been taking prescription medicine, there was no formal diagnosis in the record, and the medicine had been obtained from Canada and was not prescribed ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals