NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 22a0063n.06 No. 21-3070 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED ) Feb 02, 2022 ANTONIO CANO-MORALES, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk )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: CLAY, DONALD, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges. CLAY, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Antonio Cano-Morales petitions this Court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his motion to reopen his cancellation of removal proceedings. The only issue in the case is whether the evidence he proffered in support of reopening his removal proceeding—that his daughters would not receive the same education and that one of his daughters would not be able to adequately treat her pre-diabetes—is sufficient to create a reasonable likelihood of proving that his removal would cause his daughters exceptional or extremely unusual hardship. We DENY Cano’s petition for review for the reasons set forth below. I. BACKGROUND Antonio Cano-Morales (“Cano”) is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without admission in 1994. During the approximately 20 years Cano has lived in the United No. 21-3070, Cano-Morales v. Garland States, he fathered two daughters, purchased a home, and was gainfully employed as a nurseryman. Cano’s domestic partner, Diana Salazar, is also a native and citizen of Mexico. In 2014, Cano was convicted of misdemeanor domestic assault and sentenced to approximately 12 months’ imprisonment. Shortly after his release, Cano was arrested during a traffic stop, and the Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings. With the aid of counsel, Cano conceded removability but sought cancellation of removal because doing so would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship on his two daughters, M.C. and C.C. Specifically, he argued that he would not be able to make enough money to support himself in Mexico while still supporting Salazar, M.C., and C.C., who planned to remain in the United States. Salazar also testified in support of Cano, stating that she struggled to pay the family’s bills while he was detained pending removal. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Cano’s motion for cancellation of removal. To be eligible for cancellation of removal, Cano had to prove that he “(1) had been continuously present in the United States during the ten-year period preceding the application; (2) has been a person of good moral character during that time; (3) has not been convicted of certain qualifying convictions, and (4) his removal would result in ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’” to his daughters. Galindo-Munoz v. Barr, 799 F. App’x 905, 910 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)). The IJ concluded that Cano had satisfied each element except proving his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.1 Cano appealed the denial of his cancellation of 1 The IJ determined Cano’s domestic violence conviction was excusable under the petty offense exception, and therefore, was not a crime involving moral turpitude. Considering this in …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals