NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 21a0476n.06 No. 21-3130 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) FILED ALEJANDRO MARTINEZ-HERNANDEZ, Oct 25, 2021 ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM ) THE UNITED STATES BOARD OF ) MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, IMMIGRATION APPEALS ) ) Respondent. ) ) Before: DAUGHTREY, COLE, and CLAY, Circuit Judges. MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Alejandro Martinez- Hernandez petitions for review of the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of his request for cancellation of removal. Before this court, Martinez-Hernandez argues that the immigration court barred him from presenting the live testimony of his qualifying relatives, amounting to an infringement of his due process rights. Because Martinez-Hernandez, through his attorney, did not take advantage of opportunities to elicit such testimony, and because Martinez-Hernandez failed to identify any resulting prejudice, we must deny the petition for review. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Martinez-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in March 2004. Four months later, his wife also entered the country without authorization, bringing with her from Mexico the couple’s eldest son, Alejandro Jr. After settling Case No. 21-3130, Martinez-Hernandez v. Garland in Michigan, the couple had two additional children, Erick (born in May 2005) and Fatima (born in April 2011). Despite securing gainful employment, buying a home, and leading an otherwise exemplary live, Martinez-Hernandez accumulated several traffic tickets, which ultimately brought him to the attention of immigration authorities. The Department of Homeland Security issued Martinez-Hernandez a notice to appear before an immigration judge to answer the charge that he had entered this country when “not then admitted or paroled after inspection by an Immigration Officer.” After an initial hearing at which Martinez-Hernandez admitted the charge and conceded removability, he applied for cancellation of removal based upon his allegation that his deportation would inflict exceptional and extremely unusual hardship on Erick and Fatima, his two children with United States citizenship.1 Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the hearing was conducted remotely, with Martinez- Hernandez appearing from a detention facility and his lawyer and the government’s lawyer participating via telephone. Martinez-Hernandez was the only witness who testified at the hearing, although he did offer into evidence letters and declarations from family members, his employer, and church acquaintances. Martinez-Hernandez testified that he was the primary breadwinner for his family, 1 Pursuant to the provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), the Attorney General may cancel the removal of an alien deportable from the United States if that individual: (A) has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application; (B) has been a person of good moral character during such period; (C) has not been convicted of an offense under section 1182(a)(2), 1227(a)(2), or 1227(a)(3) of this title, subject to paragraph (5); and (D) establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals