NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 20-1499 ___________ J. FELIX MATEO GUILLEN-MARTINEZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent _______________________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A215-928-617 (U.S. Immigration Judge: Alice S. Hartye) ______________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 12, 2020 Before: HARDIMAN, SCIRICA, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges. (Filed January 5, 2021) ________________ OPINION* ________________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. SCIRICA, Circuit Judge J. Felix Guillen-Martinez, a Mexican citizen, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s order dismissing his appeal and affirming the Immigration Judge’s order denying cancellation of removal. In its decision, the Board agreed with the Immigration Judge that Guillen-Martinez did not merit cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion. Guillen-Martinez contends the Board and Immigration Judge failed to apply the correct legal standard to the established facts. We disagree and will deny Guillen-Martinez’s petition to the extent it raises a question of law. To the extent Guillen- Martinez asks us to review the Board’s discretionary weighing of the equities, we will dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. I. After the Government began proceedings to remove Guillen-Martinez, he conceded removability but sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). At the conclusion of Guillen-Martinez’s immigration hearing, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied his application for cancellation of removal. The IJ found that Guillen-Martinez did not establish the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. In the alternative, the IJ found that Guillen-Martinez did not merit a grant of cancellation as a matter of discretion. In making her discretionary determination, the IJ balanced adverse factors evidencing Guillen-Martinez’s undesirability as a permanent resident against positive factors supporting cancellation of removal. As for the positive factors, the IJ highlighted that Guillen-Martinez has resided in the United States for over two decades, has children who are U.S. citizens, has worked consistently, and his 2 employer and his employer’s wife testified that he was a good worker whom they would rehire. The IJ also reviewed the adverse factor of Guillen-Martinez’s criminal history, which includes four DUI arrests leading to three convictions, as well as an arrest for a domestic incident that did not lead to a conviction. The IJ concluded that Guillen- Martinez’s “criminal history, particular[ly] the number of DUI arrests and convictions, outweigh[s] the positive factors.” Guillen-Martinez appealed the IJ’s decision to the Board. The Board dismissed Guillen-Martinez’s appeal, agreeing with the IJ’s determination that Guillen-Martinez did not merit cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion based on his criminal history.1 The Board noted some of the factors favorable to Guillen-Martinez, including his length of residence in the United States, his significant family ties in the United States, and his employment history. But, ultimately, the Board found that Guillen-Martinez’s record of arrests and convictions outweighed ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals