USCA11 Case: 19-14058 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 1 of 9 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-14058 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ ESTEBAN FLORES-ALONSO, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A200-936-453 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 19-14058 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 2 of 9 2 Opinion of the Court 19-14058 Before GRANT, LUCK, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Esteban Flores-Alonso sought and was denied cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. Because there is no legal or constitutional error in the decision of the Board of Immigration Ap- peals, we dismiss the petition. I. Flores-Alonso is a Mexican citizen who came to the United States without authorization in 2001. 1 After being stopped for driv- ing without a license, removal proceedings were initiated against Flores-Alonso. In response, Flores-Alonso applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, a discretionary form of relief, which the Immigration Judge denied on March 21, 2018. Flores- Alonso appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which “affirm[ed] the Immigration Judge’s decision on the ground that the respondent ha[d] not established that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his quali- fying relatives.” Flores-Alonso now timely appeals on two separate but interrelated grounds: 1) that the BIA committed legal error in 1 Flores-Alonso contended that he entered the United States in May 2000. However, based on all the evidence, the Immigration Judge determined that Flores-Alonso “entered in 2001.” USCA11 Case: 19-14058 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 3 of 9 19-14058 Opinion of the Court 3 applying the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard and 2) that the BIA failed to render a reasoned decision. II. There are four statutory eligibility criteria for cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The Immigration Judge found that Flores-Alonso did not meet two of them: 1) the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship requirement and 2) the ten years of continuous physical presence requirement. See § 1229b(b)(1). Because the BIA affirmed only on the basis of the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship requirement and because that is the basis of Flores-Alonso’s appeal, we train our focus there. To begin, the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship requirement is governed by BIA precedent. See Matter of Monreal- Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56 (BIA 2001); Matter of Andazola-Rivas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 319 (BIA 2002); Matter of Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 467 (BIA 2002). Under the exceptional and extremely un- usual hardship standard, the BIA considers the “ages, health, and circumstances of qualifying lawful permanent resident[s] and United States citizen relatives” of the applicant to determine whether the hardship the qualifying relative(s) would face upon the applicant’s departure from the United States would be “substan- tially beyond that which ordinarily would be expected to result from the alien’s deportation.” Matter of Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 59, 63 (emphasis and …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals