FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 15, 2021 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court MANUEL SUSANO-BONILLA, a/k/a Manuel S. Bonilla, Petitioner, v. No. 20-9557 (Petition for Review) MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General,* Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT** _________________________________ Before MORITZ, BALDOCK, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Manuel Susano-Bonilla (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his motion to reopen his proceedings to seek cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. * On March 11, 2021, Merrick B. Garland became 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. § 1229b(b)(1). Some of Petitioner’s arguments challenge the BIA’s discretionary hardship determination under § 1229b(b)(1)(D), and we lack jurisdiction to consider those arguments. His remaining arguments lack merit. We therefore dismiss his petition in part and deny it in part. BACKGROUND In 1999, Petitioner entered the United States at eighteen years old. In 2012, the Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings against him. Petitioner conceded the removal charge and applied for cancellation of removal under § 1229b(b)(1). For such relief, Petitioner needed to show: (1) ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States immediately prior to the application; (2) “good moral character during such period”; (3) the lack of any disqualifying convictions; and (4) that his “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to” a qualifying relative who is a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident. § 1229b(b)(1). For the hardship requirement, Petitioner alleged that his three children, who are United States citizens, would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he were removed to Mexico. At the hearing before an immigration judge (“IJ”) in 2017, Petitioner testified that if he were removed, his children would remain in the United States with their respective mothers—M.G.S. and A.A.S. would remain with Petitioner’s ex-wife, Joanna Herrera (“Ms. Herrera”), while U.E.S. would remain with Petitioner’s long- time partner, Rocelyn Salgado-Escobedo (“Ms. Salgado”). Petitioner testified that his children do not have health concerns or special educational needs but that his 2 removal would cause them emotional and economic hardship. He testified that he sees M.G.S. and A.A.S. multiple times per week through a custody arrangement with Ms. Herrera. And he explained that he lives with U.E.S. along with Ms. Salgado and …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals