Appellate Case: 20-9626 Document: 010110713034 Date Filed: 07/19/2022 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 19, 2022 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court PEDRO AYALA-MONROY, Petitioner, v. No. 20-9626 (Petition for Review) MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Pedro Ayala-Monroy, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board” or “BIA”) decision upholding the denial of his applications for cancellation of removal and withholding of removal.1 Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), we deny the petition for review. * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 1 Mr. Ayala-Monroy does not challenge the Board’s determinations that (1) it could not consider arguments related to asylum because “he did not request asylum before the Immigration Judge, and he has not argued that remand is appropriate to Appellate Case: 20-9626 Document: 010110713034 Date Filed: 07/19/2022 Page: 2 I. BACKGROUND Mr. Ayala-Monroy last entered the United States in 2002. In 2010, he and a Ukrainian citizen had a son, married, and later divorced. In 2018, he married a U.S. citizen, who has two children. The three aforementioned children are U.S. citizens. The government charged Mr. Ayala-Monroy with being present in the United States without inspection, admission, or parole. He applied for cancellation of removal and withholding of removal. The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied cancellation of removal because Mr. Ayala-Monroy had not demonstrated “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to any qualifying relatives, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). And the IJ denied withholding of removal because Mr. Ayala-Monroy had not established “membership in a particular social group,” as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). The IJ held that Mr. Ayala-Monroy’s proposed social group, returning parents of U.S.-citizen children, was not sufficiently particular or distinct to be cognizable. Mr. Ayala-Monroy appealed to the Board. He requested that it take administrative notice of the State Department’s 2017 Human Rights Report on allow him to pursue this form of relief,” Admin. R. Vol. 1 at 3 n.1 (citation omitted), and (2) he waived any issues regarding the immigration judge’s denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture by failing to challenge that decision on appeal. We therefore need not consider these issues. See Addo v. Barr, 982 F.3d 1263, 1266 n.2 (10th Cir. 2020) (holding that failure to present an argument on an issue results in waiver). 2 Appellate …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals