NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 21-1193 ____________ ALEXANDER ISRAEL AMAGUA-ZAPATA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A204-274-088) Immigration Judge: Pallavi S. Shirole ____________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) January 28, 2022 ____________ Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, McKEE and MATEY, Circuit Judges (Filed January 31, 2022) ____________ OPINION* ____________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. CHAGARES, Chief Judge. Alexander Israel Amagua-Zapata petitions this Court to review a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying Amagua-Zapata’s petition seeking cancellation of removal. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition. I.1 Amagua-Zapata, a native and citizen of Ecuador, has resided in the United States since he was under three years old. He concedes his removability and seeks cancellation of removal based on his relationship with his mother, a lawful permanent resident of the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). Amagua-Zapata testified before the IJ that his mother depends on his assistance with her medical issues and the household finances. In addition, he testified to their close bond and his belief that, because his older brother passed away in 2009, his removal would be akin to his mother losing a second child. He also testified to having good moral character, although he acknowledged that he was convicted for driving under the influence (“DUI”) of alcohol in 2017 and 2019. The IJ concluded that Amagua-Zapata failed to establish the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his mother or good moral character for the ten-year period preceding his application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(B), (D). Among other things, the IJ concluded that Amagua-Zapata’s mother would not suffer exceptional and 1 Because we write only for the parties, we recite only those facts pertinent to our decision. 2 extremely unusual hardship since she has medical insurance, a job, and other family members to rely upon, and because Amagua-Zapata’s removal would not be akin to losing a child, as his mother could speak to him and visit him in Ecuador. In addition, the IJ concluded that Amagua-Zapata’s two DUI convictions resulted in a presumption that he lacked good moral character during that time, see Matter of Castillo-Perez, 27 I. & N. Dec. 664, 669 (Att’y Gen. 2019), and Amagua-Zapata did not overcome the presumption with substantial, relevant, and credible evidence demonstrating that the convictions were an aberration. Id. at 671. Amagua-Zapata appealed the IJ’s denial to the BIA. The BIA dismissed Amagua-Zapata’s appeal. The BIA saw no clear error in the IJ’s factfinding and agreed with the IJ’s conclusions. The BIA also rejected Amagua- Zapata’s claim on appeal that the IJ committed error by not having his mother present live testimony. Amagua-Zapata timely filed this petition for review. II.2 A. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals