NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0049n.06 Case No. 18-3539 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jan 29, 2019 ABDIAS ALEXANDER CATALAN- ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ESTRADA, ) ) Petitioner, ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW ) FROM THE UNITED STATES v. ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION ) APPEALS MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting U.S. ) Attorney General, ) ) Respondent. ) BEFORE: CLAY, COOK, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges. COOK, Circuit Judge. Abdias Alexander Catalan-Estrada petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision upholding an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen cancellation of removal proceedings. Because the Board correctly required Catalan-Estrada to present new evidence likely to change the result of his case, and he failed to do so, we DENY Catalan-Estrada’s petition for review. I. Catalan-Estrada, a native and citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States illegally on an unknown date. In 2012, the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear charging Catalan-Estrada as removable. Catalan-Estrada admitted the Notice’s factual allegations Case No. 18-3539, Catalan-Estrada v. Whitaker and conceded his removability. The immigration court held a hearing in 2015, at which Catalan- Estrada applied for cancellation of removal. Relevant here, Catalan-Estrada testified at the hearing and marked on his application that his two daughters, both United States citizens, would not accompany him to Guatemala should his application fail. He also acknowledged that Tennessee’s Medicaid program covered both daughters. The immigration judge denied the application in a written decision issued almost two years after the hearing, finding that Catalan-Estrada failed to show that his deportation would cause his daughters “exceptional and extremely unusual” hardship. Instead of appealing the immigration court’s decision, Catalan-Estrada timely moved to reopen the proceedings, citing new evidence of his younger daughter’s recent diagnoses of asthma and expressive language delay, and symptoms of autism spectrum disorder. The immigration judge denied the motion, reasoning that because Catalan-Estrada never amended his testimony that the daughters would not accompany him to Guatemala, and because his younger daughter had access to care in the United States, the new evidence would not alter the cancellation decision. Catalan-Estrada appealed this decision to the Board, which dismissed the case, rejecting the argument that the immigration judge applied the wrong standard by requiring new evidence likely to change the result of the case. This petition followed. II. We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen immigration proceedings for abuse of discretion. Trujillo Diaz v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 244, 248 (6th Cir. 2018). The Board abuses its discretion when it denies a motion to reopen “without a rational explanation,” “inexplicably depart[s] from established policies,” or rests its decision “on an impermissible basis such as invidious discrimination against a particular race or group.” Balani v. I.N.S., 669 F.2d 1157, 1161 -2- Case No. 18-3539, Catalan-Estrada v. Whitaker (6th Cir. 1982). We review questions of law de novo, giving “substantial deference” to the Board’s interpretations of the Immigration and Nationality Act and its accompanying regulations. Kukalo v. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals