FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 29, 2021 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court ELIAS CRUZ ACOSTA; VERONICA CRUZ, Petitioners, v. No. 20-9566 (Petition for Review) MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, ∗ Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT ** _________________________________ Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying petitioners’ application for cancellation of removal. They sought reconsideration, which the BIA denied. They now petition for review of the BIA’s ∗ On March 11, 2021, Merrick B. Garland became Attorney General of the United States. Consequently, his name has been substituted for William P. Barr as Respondent, per Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). ** 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. denial of reconsideration. We deny their petition in part, and dismiss in part for lack of jurisdiction. BACKGROUND Petitioners are natives and citizens of Mexico. Elias Cruz Acosta entered the United States in 1997 and Veronica Cruz entered this country in 1998. After their arrival they had two children whom they allege to be United States citizens. In October 2009 the Department of Homeland Security issued petitioners notices to appear, charging they were removable because they had entered the United States without being lawfully admitted or paroled. Petitioners admitted the factual allegations in the notices to appear and conceded their removability, but they sought cancellation of removal relief. To be eligible for a discretionary grant of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), a noncitizen must meet four criteria: (1) continuous physical presence in the United States for at least ten years before the application, (2) good moral character during the same period, (3) no convictions for certain crimes specified elsewhere in the Immigration and Nationality Act, and (4) “that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” Id. § 1229b(b)(1)(A)-(D). The IJ held a hearing on petitioners’ cancellation applications and determined that they met each of these criteria except the fourth: exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their United States citizen children. 2 The IJ found that if the petitioners were removed, their children, a son who was then 17 and a daughter then 14, would remain in the United States. The resulting family separation would create hardship for both children. But the children had family in …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals