NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 22a0210n.06 Case No. 21-3870 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED May 31, 2022 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) ALBERTO FRANCISCO-DIEGO, ) Petitioner ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW ) FROM THE UNITED STATES v. ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION ) APPEALS MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, ) Respondent. ) ) OPINION ) Before: McKEAGUE, NALBANDIAN, and READLER, Circuit Judges. NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. After the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) charged Alberto Francisco-Diego with removability, he applied for cancellation of his removal. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied him relief, finding that he didn’t meet the hardship standard. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) found no error and dismissed his appeal. We too find no error and DISMISS his petition in part and DENY it in part. I. In 2001, Francisco, a native of Guatemala, illegally entered the United States.1 Twelve years later, the DHS served him with a notice to appear, charging him with removability for being an alien present in the United States without admission or parole. Francisco conceded his removability but applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). 1 In his brief, the petitioner refers to himself as “Francisco.” We do the same. No. 21-3870, Francisco-Diego v. Garland At his hearing, Francisco testified that he lives in Cookeville, Tennessee with his wife and three children (ages 9, 4, and 2). His wife is also a native of Guatemala and illegally resides in the United States. Their three children are United States citizens. Francisco explained that he is the sole financial provider for his family. He works on a chicken farm and earns around $400 a week. Francisco’s wife isn’t employed. When asked if she looked for a job, he replied that she did not because she neither speaks nor reads either English or Spanish. As for their children, they speak a little Spanish, the oldest is doing well in school, they receive food stamps and government healthcare, and have no health issues. When asked if his family would accompany him to Guatemala, Francisco responded that “[t]hey can’t because . . . they wouldn’t have any studies, they wouldn’t have any benefits, life is very hard in my town.” (A.R., Hearing Tr., at PageID 126.) Francisco’s wife, too, testified that she couldn’t go back to Guatemala. Francisco said that he doesn’t own a home in Guatemala, that he has two siblings there, and that he couldn’t secure a job if he returns. At the end of the hearing the IJ entered an oral decision denying Francisco relief. She found, among other things, that he failed to show how his removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his children. The BIA affirmed and dismissed the appeal. The BIA found that even if Francisco’s children would suffer some hardship, it didn’t rise to the requisite level of “exceptional and extremely unusual.” And because that issue was decisive, the BIA declined to address alternative issues. Francisco then filed his petition …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals