FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 4, 2021 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court MIGUEL ANGEL VERGARA- CARRETO, a/k/a Miguel Vergara, Petitioner, v. No. 20-9519 (Petition for Review) ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting United States Attorney General, * Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT ** _________________________________ Before HARTZ, KELLY, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Miguel Vergara-Carreto is a native and citizen of Mexico. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the denial by an immigration judge (IJ) of his * On January 20, 2021, Robert M. Wilkinson became Acting Attorney General of the United States. Consequently, his name has been substituted for William P. Barr as Respondent, per Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). ** 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) and dismissed his appeal. In the briefs on his petition for review by this court, Mr. Vergara-Carreto argues that the IJ acted as a partisan adjudicator, thereby denying him due process; that the IJ and BIA treated his claim of hardship differently from that of similarly situated persons, violating his right to equal protection; and that the BIA failed to consider all relevant evidence in connection with his claim of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, violating due process. But Mr. Vergara-Carreto did not exhaust his “partisan adjudicator” argument before the BIA, and his remaining arguments ignore the independently dispositive finding of the IJ that he lacked the requisite good moral character to qualify for cancellation of removal. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), we dismiss the petition for review in part and deny it in part. I. BACKGROUND Mr. Vergara-Carreto entered the United States in 1992 and has remained in the country continuously since then, save for a less-than-one-month absence in 2004 when he briefly visited Mexico. He is married and lived with his wife and three of his U.S.-citizen children who were aged 13, 12, and 4 at the time the IJ entered its decision. The Department of Homeland Security issued him a Notice to Appear, charging him with removability under § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). He conceded removability but applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). 2 To be eligible for a discretionary grant of cancellation under § 1229b(b)(1), an alien must establish four elements: (1) continuous physical presence in the United States for at least ten years before the application, (2) good moral ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals