NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 21a0326n.06 Case No. 20-4295 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jul 12, 2021 ABRAHAM CONTRERAS-SANCHEZ, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR v. ) REVIEW FROM THE ) UNITED STATES BOARD MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, ) OF IMMIGRATION ) APPEALS Respondent. ) ) OPINION Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; SUHRHEINRICH and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges. NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Abraham Contreras-Sanchez appeals the Immigration Judge’s decision to deny his cancellation of removal request and the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision to dismiss his appeal. As far as Contreras disputes factual findings below, we DISMISS for lack of jurisdiction. On the remaining claims, we DENY the petition for review. I. Background Abraham Contreras-Sanchez entered the United States illegally in 2001. After he pled guilty to driving while intoxicated and failing to stop at the scene of a personal-injury accident, the government began removal proceedings. The government charged Contreras with removability as a noncitizen present in the No. 20-4295, Contreras-Sanchez v. Garland United States without admission or parole. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Represented by counsel, Contreras admitted removability but applied for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Cancellation of removal is halting a removal and adjusting an immigrant’s status to lawful permanent resident. Id. The Attorney General has the power to cancel removal1 when the immigrant meets four criteria: 1) he “has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding” the cancellation of removal application, 2) he “has been a person of good moral character during such period,” 3) he has not been convicted of certain crimes, and 4) he “establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” Id. Only the last prong is at issue here. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) held a hearing on Contreras’s motion. Contreras testified that he came to the United States to find employment and that he worked at a restaurant and a furniture company, making about $60,000 a year. His wife Martha also does not have legal status in the country. They have five children who are all United States citizens and range in age from about five to sixteen years old. None of the children has health or educational problems. Contreras is the sole provider for his family. 1 The Attorney General is not required to do so even if the immigrant meets all the criteria. See Singh v. Rosen, 984 F.3d 1142, 1147 (6th Cir. 2021). -2- No. 20-4295, Contreras-Sanchez v. Garland Contreras and Martha decided that they would move the entire family to Mexico if Contreras were removed. Contreras testified that he believed this would harm his children because they speak little Spanish, and they might struggle to adapt and thus experience bullying. The family plans to live with Contreras’s …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals