NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted April 2, 2020* Decided April 3, 2020 Before DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge No. 19-2298 EDUIN ISRAEL PEREZ-CASTILLO, Petition for Review of an Order of the Petitioner, Board of Immigration Appeals. v. No. A213-021-626 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. ORDER Eduin Israel Perez-Castillo, a 41-year-old Guatemalan citizen who entered the United States without admission or inspection in 1996, challenges the denial of his application to cancel his removal. He contends that his removal will impose “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” on his daughter, a U.S. citizen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). An immigration judge and then the Board of Immigration * We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). No. 19-2298 Page 2 Appeals concluded that he did not provide sufficient evidence of hardship. We lack jurisdiction to review his challenge to those discretionary determinations, so we dismiss his petition in part. We deny the remainder of the petition. Several years after entering the United States, Perez-Castillo married and later had a daughter. In 2018, he was arrested for domestic-violence assault in the second degree, and his wife obtained a protective order. The Department of Homeland Security then charged him as removable. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Perez-Castillo sought cancellation of removal, asserting that his daughter, then age four, would suffer hardship if he were removed. At a hearing, he testified that his daughter was conceived by in vitro fertilization and, for this reason, in his view, she had trouble being alone. The immigration judge denied Perez-Castillo’s application. The IJ determined that Perez-Castillo had not shown that his daughter would suffer “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship,” a prerequisite for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). She alternatively denied the application as a matter of discretion based on Perez-Castillo’s “dangerous criminal history.” The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the IJ’s decision, agreeing that Perez- Castillo had not established that his removal would cause substantial hardship to his daughter. The Board noted that his daughter did not have any compelling educational or health issues. It also rejected a due-process challenge brought by Perez-Castillo because he failed to specify what aspects of his proceedings were unfair. While this case was pending in our court, the government removed Perez- Castillo. That development does not moot this appeal, however, because a petitioner may still seek cancellation of removal even after having been removed. See Carachuri- Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563, 573 n.8 (2010). In his petition for review, Perez-Castillo charges generally that the denial of his application was “an abuse of discretion and legal error.” We lack jurisdiction to review the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals