NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0342n.06 No. 18-3818 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jul 05, 2019 DANIEL VALDEZ-ARRIAGA, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, ) APPEALS ) Respondent. ) ) Before: WHITE, BUSH, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges. LARSEN, Circuit Judge. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Daniel Valdez-Arriaga’s application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The IJ found that Valdez- Arriaga had failed to satisfy three of § 1229b(b)(1)’s requirements: (1) ten years’ continuous physical presence in the United States; (2) good moral character during that period; and (3) “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his qualifying United States citizen relatives resulting from his removal. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of relief on continuous-presence and hardship grounds, and Valdez-Arriaga petitioned for review. We lack jurisdiction, however, to review Valdez-Arriaga’s fact-bound challenge to the agency’s hardship determination, and that determination was not otherwise legally erroneous. Therefore, Valdez-Arriaga cannot establish eligibility for relief under § 1229b(b)(1), and we must deny his petition for review. I. A native and citizen of Mexico, Valdez-Arriaga testified that he entered the United States in 2000 when he was seventeen. Once inside the country, he traveled to Dayton, Tennessee, where No. 18-3818, Valdez-Arriaga v. Barr he worked in agriculture. Valdez-Arriaga attested that he has five children who are United States citizens. He resided with his youngest child, Xitlali, who was born in 2016, and her mother Beatriz Ponce-Gonzalez. Xitlali was born prematurely and has heart and mobility issues. His other four children live with their respective mothers, but Valdez-Arriaga has provided them with financial assistance and has been active in their lives. In December 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) filed a Notice to Appear (NTA) in Immigration Court, charging Valdez-Arriaga with removability as an alien present in the United States without admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). In June 2016, Valdez-Arriaga conceded the charge of removability in the NTA—that he had entered the country illegally—but filed an application for cancellation of removal for nonpermanent residents under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). To qualify for cancellation of removal, Valdez-Arriaga was required to establish that (1) he had been continuously present in the United States for ten years immediately preceding his application, (2) he had been “a person of good moral character” during that time, (3) he had not been convicted of any specified crimes, and (4) his removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his qualifying United States citizen relatives. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A)–(D). An IJ held a hearing on Valdez-Arriaga’s application in August 2017. Valdez-Arriaga submitted documentary evidence in support of his application, and both he and Ponce-Gonzalez testified. Following the hearing, the IJ denied the application for cancellation of removal but granted Valdez-Arriaga voluntary departure. The IJ gave three independently sufficient reasons for denying the application. First, the IJ held that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals