NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0528n.06 No. 18-4138 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED NANCY GONZALEZ-VALDERRAMA, ) Oct 16, 2019 ) DEBORAH S. HUNT,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: MERRITT, DAUGHTREY, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Nancy Gonzalez-Valderrama petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from the denial of her application for cancellation of removal. Gonzalez-Valderrama, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in November 2002. In May 2013, after her conviction for driving under the influence, the Department of Homeland Security served Gonzalez-Valderrama with a notice to appear in removal proceedings, charging her with removability as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Gonzalez-Valderrama appeared before an immigration judge (IJ) and conceded removability as charged. Gonzalez- Valderrama subsequently applied for cancellation of removal on the basis that her removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her United States citizen children. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). At the hearing on her application, Gonzalez-Valderrama testified that, No. 18-4138, Gonzalez-Valderrama v. Barr if she were removed, she would take her two daughters with her to Mexico, where they would face financial difficulties and crime and would not have access to the same levels of education and health care as they do in the United States. After the hearing, the IJ denied Gonzalez-Valderrama’s application for cancellation of removal, finding that the hardship suffered by her children “would fall well within the range of ‘normal’ hardship experienced by any family forced to return to, and live[] in[,] Mexico” and would not rise to the level of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. Gonzalez-Valderrama appealed the IJ’s decision. The BIA initially dismissed Gonzalez-Valderrama’s appeal for failure to file a brief but granted her motion to reopen. After Gonzalez-Valderrama filed a brief, the BIA dismissed the appeal, concluding that she had not demonstrated that her children would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if they accompanied her to Mexico. This timely petition for review followed. To be eligible for cancellation of removal under Section 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the alien must establish “that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). The agency’s hardship determination is a discretionary decision outside the scope of our review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Aburto-Rocha v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 500, 503 (6th Cir. 2008). We retain jurisdiction, however, to consider “constitutional claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see also Montanez-Gonzalez v. Holder, 780 F.3d 720, 722 (6th Cir. 2015). In support of her petition for ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals