FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT November 10, 2020 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court JOSE MANUEL ORTEGA-LOPEZ, a/k/a Jose Lopez, a/k/a Manuel Lopez, a/k/a Jose Ortega, a/k/a Jose Manuel Lopez, a/k/a Manuel Jose Lopez, Petitioner, v. No. 19-9591 (Petition for Review) WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before HARTZ, McHUGH, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Jose Manuel Ortega-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Mr. Ortega-Lopez contends the agency lacked jurisdiction over his removal proceedings, improperly conditioned relief on his having more than one child * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. and being destitute, and denied him due process by failing to address all his arguments. We deny the petition for review. I Mr. Ortega-Lopez initially entered the United States without inspection in 1986. In 1998 he departed for two weeks, reentered without inspection, and has remained here since. In 2005 he was served with a notice to appear in removal proceedings, charging him with entering this country without admission or parole. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). He conceded the charge and was granted voluntary departure, but an immigration judge (IJ) reopened the case so he could apply for cancellation of removal. To qualify for cancellation of removal, which is a form of discretionary relief, Mr. Ortega-Lopez had to show, among other things, that his “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to [his] spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).1 Mr. Ortega-Lopez claimed that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his 12-year-old daughter, Yesenia, a U.S. citizen. Through a proffer he said that Yesenia lived with her mother and her mother’s boyfriend, but he visited her at least once each week and they went on regular outings. He voluntarily paid 1 A noncitizen must also demonstrate that he was physically present in the United States for the ten years preceding his application, he had been a person of good moral character during that time, and he had not been convicted of any disqualifying crimes. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A)-(C). If a noncitizen satisfies the statutory criteria, he must then persuade the Attorney General to favorably exercise discretion and grant relief. The government stipulated that Mr. Ortega-Lopez satisfied the first three statutory ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals