NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 17-1850 ________________ HUGO ALVARADO-HERRERA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A089-242-604) Immigration Judge: Steven A. Morley ________________ Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on January 8, 2018 Before: JORDAN, ROTH, Circuit Judges and STEARNS, District Judge (Opinion filed: January 31, 2019) ________________ OPINION ________________ The Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts, 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. ROTH, Circuit Judge Petitioner Hugo Alvarado-Herrera appeals the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his request for cancellation of removal. To be eligible for cancellation of removal, Alvarado-Herrera was required to demonstrate that he had a continuous presence in the United States for a ten-year period, and that over the ten-year period he did not depart “for any period in excess of 90 days or for any periods in the aggregate exceeding 180 days.”1 It is clear from the record that Alvarado-Herrera cannot demonstrate continuous presence. To get around this obstacle, Alvarado-Herrera argues that (1) the IJ violated his due process rights by asking him leading questions that created an unreliable testimonial record, and (2) we should remand this case so that the government can produce records relating to Alvarado-Herrera’s travel on an H-2B visa, records which would definitively show how long Alvarado-Herrera was outside of the United States. Neither of these arguments is meritorious. We will therefore deny Alvarado-Herrera’s petition for review. I. Alvarado-Herrera, a citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without permission in 1996. In 2010, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him. Alvarado-Herrera conceded removability but sought 1 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2). 2 cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b).2 Specifically, Alvarado-Herrera sought cancellation on the ground that his removal would result in hardship to his permanent-resident mother. At his removal hearing, Alvarado-Herrera testified that he left the country in 2007 from January to June (i.e., more than 90 days), and an additional five times between 2001 and 2007, for at least a month each time (i.e., when combined with his 2007 absence, more than 180 days in the aggregate). Because Alvarado’s travel outside of the country exceeded the limits in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, the IJ determined that Alvarado-Herrera could not demonstrate continuous presence. The IJ therefore concluded that Alvarado-Herrera was ineligible for cancellation of removal. Alvarado-Herrera appealed this ruling to the BIA, arguing that the IJ inappropriately questioned him during the hearing, in violation of Alvarado-Herrera’s due process rights, and failed to consider that Alvarado-Herrera’s travel outside of the country was on an H-2B visa. The BIA rejected Alvarado-Herrera’s arguments and affirmed. Alvarado-Herrera now petitions for our review.3 2 Section 1229b provides that the Attorney General ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals