NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 21a0209n.06 Case No. 20-3617 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Apr 21, 2021 EVODIO RODRIGUEZ-SALAS, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, ) APPEALS ) Respondent. ) ) ____________________________________/ Before: GUY, DONALD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. RALPH B. GUY, JR., Circuit Judge. Evodio Rodriguez-Salas petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal on the grounds that he had “not demonstrated cumulative hardship to his United States citizen children that is exceptional and extremely unusual.” The government urges dismissal of the petition because this court has “traditionally described the Board’s hardship decision as a ‘discretionary’ call that falls outside our jurisdiction.” Singh v. Rosen, 984 F.3d 1142, 1150 (6th Cir. 2021). In Singh, however, we recognized that application of the hardship standard to settled facts is a mixed question of law and fact, which the Supreme Court recently made clear is within our jurisdiction to review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Id. at 1145 (citing Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062, 1068-69 (2020)). Exercising that jurisdiction, we DENY the petition for review on the merits. Case No. 20-3617, Rodriguez-Salas v. Garland Rodriguez-Salas, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in 1997, was served a notice to appear in 2013, and conceded that he was subject to removal at a hearing before an immigration judge in 2018. The only relief he sought at that time was cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). “To be eligible for this form of relief, a nonpermanent resident alien like [Rodriguez-Salas] must prove four things: (1) he has been present in the United States for at least 10 years; (2) he has been a person of good moral character; (3) he has not been convicted of certain criminal offenses; and (4) his removal would impose an ‘exceptional and extremely unusual’ hardship on a close relative who is either a citizen or permanent resident of this country.” Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S. Ct. 754, 759 (2021). If he fails to establish any one of those things, he is not eligible to have the removal order cancelled. Here, the immigration judge found that the first two eligibility requirements were met, but that the last two were not. The BIA, however, relied solely on a failure to meet the hardship requirement. When the BIA issues its own decision, that becomes the “final agency determination” and we may review the immigration judge’s reasoning only to the extent that the BIA adopted it. Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009). Here, the BIA found the hardship issue dispositive and expressly declined to address whether Rodriguez-Salas’s prior Arkansas conviction for assault on a family member was a disqualifying offense. So, although Rodriguez-Salas argues that his conviction did not disqualify him from relief, only the hardship …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals