Duarte-Lopez v. Garland


Appellate Case: 21-9565 Document: 010110690015 Date Filed: 05/27/2022 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 27, 2022 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court OMAR OSIEL DUARTE-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. No. 21-9565 (Petition for Review) MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HOLMES, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Omar Osiel Duarte-Lopez petitions for review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the denial of his application for cancellation of removal by an Immigration Judge (IJ). We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. * 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. Appellate Case: 21-9565 Document: 010110690015 Date Filed: 05/27/2022 Page: 2 BACKGROUND Mr. Duarte, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States in 1998 or 1999. The Department of Homeland Security served him with a notice to appear in March 2010. Mr. Duarte conceded removability before an IJ and applied for discretionary cancellation of removal. This required him to show, among other criteria, that “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to certain qualifying relatives—here, his two U.S.-citizen daughters—would result from his removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The IJ denied his application for cancellation of removal, so Mr. Duarte appealed to the BIA. In 2013, the BIA remanded the matter back to the IJ for further consideration of Mr. Duarte’s application. The BIA concluded the IJ did not “adequately address the impact of being in the mother’s care on the children,” nor did the IJ “consider the impact of living with the mother in a potentially dangerous environment.” R. at 409. The BIA ordered that, on remand, “the parties should be allowed to present additional testimony and to submit additional documentary evidence regarding the children’s current living conditions, the ability of the mother to take care of the children on her own upon the respondent’s removal, and any changes in the legal custody of the children.” Id. After the BIA issued its remand order, a different IJ held a new hearing in September 2017. As indicated in his pre-hearing statement, Mr. Duarte initially had planned on presenting the testimony of his mother and a family friend but ultimately presented only his own testimony. He also submitted updated copies of state court 2 Appellate Case: 21-9565 Document: 010110690015 Date Filed: 05/27/2022 Page: 3 orders pertaining to the custody and parenting time of his children between himself and their mother. …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals