NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 21a0169n.06 No. 20-3571 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED MARCELO ARAUJO-PADILLA, ) Mar 30, 2021 ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW ) FROM THE UNITED STATES MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION ) APPEALS Respondent. ) ) Before: WHITE, LARSEN, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges. LARSEN, Circuit Judge. In 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) charged Marcelo Araujo-Padilla with removability for being an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. Araujo conceded removability but applied for cancellation of removal. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Araujo’s application and ordered him removed to Mexico. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) affirmed. In his petition for review, Araujo argues that the BIA erred by concluding that he failed to show “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative, which is a prerequisite for an alien seeking cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). The government contested our jurisdiction. For the following reasons, we hold that we have jurisdiction to entertain Araujo’s petition, but we deny it on the merits. No. 20-3571, Araujo-Padilla v. Garland I. Marcelo Araujo-Padilla is a citizen of Mexico who first entered the United States illegally in 1988. He lives just outside Nashville. He is separated from his wife, Maria Revario, with whom he has six children. Five of the children are United States citizens, but Revario is not; she lacks legal status in the United States. Following a DUI arrest in 2012, DHS served Araujo with a notice to appear, charging him with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) for being an alien present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. Through counsel, Araujo admitted the allegations in the notice to appear and conceded removability. Araujo then applied for cancellation of removal. An IJ held a hearing on the application on December 14, 2016. At the time of the hearing, Araujo’s children ranged from fifteen to twenty- three years old. Two were in high school and one attended Belmont University on a scholarship. The other three had completed high school. Araujo lived about ten minutes away from his children and would see them on the weekends. His niece and sister (both lawful residents) lived in the Nashville area too. Five of Araujo’s six children lived with their mother; none lived with Araujo. Araujo confirmed that all of his children would stay in the United States even if he were deported. Araujo testified that he provided his family with $1,000 per month in financial support from his job doing ceramic work, and his eldest daughter added that Araujo provides additional support if needed. Araujo did not believe that he would be able to get a job in Mexico. So, he argued that he qualified for cancellation of removal because his departure would create “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” for his four qualifying-relative children.1 8 U.S.C. 1 Only Araujo’s children …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals