USCA11 Case: 20-12469 Date Filed: 03/22/2021 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-12469 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A205-571-235 ARES RAMIREZ-MORALES, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (March 22, 2021) Before JORDAN, NEWSOM and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 20-12469 Date Filed: 03/22/2021 Page: 2 of 9 Ares Ramirez-Morales (“Ramirez”) seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA” or “Board”) order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Ramirez argues that the BIA abused its discretion by denying his motion to reopen because there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of his underlying removal proceedings would have been different but for his attorney’s error. Ramirez also argues that the BIA failed to account for several factors that it should have considered and that the Board didn’t provide a reasoned explanation for its actions. After careful review, we disagree, and so we deny the petition. I The parties before us are familiar with the facts, so we discuss them only briefly here. Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without authorization at some unknown time and place. In 2012, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), contending that because he hadn’t been paroled or admitted into the United States, he could be removed. Ramirez conceded that he was removeable and then applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). That provision gives the Attorney General discretion to cancel a lawful order of removal if an individual in Ramirez’s position can show (1) he has been 2 USCA11 Case: 20-12469 Date Filed: 03/22/2021 Page: 3 of 9 physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than ten years; (2) he has been a person of good moral character during that time; (3) he hasn’t been convicted of certain criminal offenses; and (4) his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative, including a United States citizen child. Immigration and Nationality Act § 240A(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). As to the last prong, the BIA has long maintained that “the hardship to an alien’s relatives, if the alien is obliged to leave the United States, must be substantially beyond the ordinary hardship that would be expected when a close family member leaves this country.” Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 62 (BIA 2001) (quotation marks omitted). Finally, even if an individual proves that he meets each prong, that “only renders an alien eligible to have his removal order cancelled.” Pereida v. Wilkinson, No. 19-438, slip op. at 2 (U.S. Mar. 4, 2021). The Attorney General may choose to cancel a removal order under those circumstances, but that’s a matter of discretion. Id. In his effort to show he qualified for cancellation …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals