In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-1040 LUIS BARRADOS-ZARATE, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. No. A089-280-474 ____________________ ARGUED NOVEMBER 17, 2020 — DECIDED NOVEMBER 24, 2020 ____________________ Before EASTERBROOK, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Luis Barrados-Zarate, a citi- zen of Mexico, lacks any claim of legal authority to be in the United States. By 2009, when he was served with a notice to appear under 8 U.S.C. §1229(a)(1), he had been here for more than a decade. This entitled him to apply for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. §1229b(b)(1). He has two children 2 No. 20-1040 who were born in the United States, and he contends that his “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to … [a] child, who is a citizen of the United States” (§1229b(b)(1)(D)). In proceedings before an immigration judge, Barrados- Zarate asserted that, if he is removed to Mexico, his domestic partner (also a Mexican citizen) and their children will ac- company him. That would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to the children, he asserted, because the rural area where he would sedle has poor health care, defi- cient educational opportunities, fewer available jobs, and a high crime rate. The immigration judge concluded that hardships adributable to these shortcomings are not “excep- tional and extremely unusual”; to the contrary, they are common consequences of removal to a nation with lower standards of living. The Board of Immigration Appeals dis- missed the appeal, explaining that the children will receive a free public education, do not appear to be in special need of medical care that may be unavailable, and will have the support of Barrados-Zarate’s extended family. Barrados-Zarate sees an opening in the fact that the Board did not mention the crime rate in Mexico as a whole or the locality where he plans to take his family. He asks us to remand for further proceedings on that subject. The Adorney General replies that the Board’s silence has a sim- ple explanation: Barrados-Zarate did not present the subject for decision. He has accordingly failed to exhaust adminis- trative remedies, which under 8 U.S.C. §1252(d)(1) precludes judicial relief. We have reviewed the brief that Barrados- Zarate’s lawyer filed with the Board, and it confirms the Adorney General’s position: it does not mention, let alone No. 20-1040 3 make an argument about, the prevalence of crime or vio- lence in Mexico as a whole or any of its localities. The prob- lem is not that the brief lacks a heading and separate discus- sion about crime; it is that the brief does not address the sub- ject at all. But Barrados-Zarate insists that this is irrelevant because, in the words of his reply brief, “[v]iolence in a country is inherent in every cancellation case.” The petition for review presents a potential jurisdictional problem. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals