Fernando Ramirez Segoviano v. Attorney General United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 17-3650 _____________ FERNANDO RAMIREZ SEGOVIANO, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA No. A200-687-279) Immigration Judge: Charles Honeyman Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) June 14, 2018 Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, CHAGARES, FUENTES, Circuit Judges. (Filed: June 18, 2018) ____________ OPINION ____________ CHAGARES, Circuit Judge  This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. Fernando Ramirez Segoviano petitions this Court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) refusal to reinstate his withdrawn application for cancellation of removal and order removing him to Mexico. Before this Court, Ramirez asserts that the IJ’s refusal to reinstate his application violated his due process rights. Because this contention lacks merit, we will deny the petition for review. I. Ramirez is a citizen of Mexico who first entered the United States illegally in 1997. He has three U.S.-citizen children, and both of his parents live in the United States as lawful permanent residents. On July 19, 2010, after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent encountered Ramirez in a Pennsylvania jail where Ramirez was being held for driving under the influence, Ramirez was served a Notice to Appear before an IJ charging him as removable for illegal entry pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Ramirez — represented by Audrey Allen, the first of Ramirez’s numerous attorneys in this proceeding — appeared before the IJ in August 2010, conceded his removability, and indicated his intent to apply for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b).1 1 Under § 1229b(b), “[t]he Attorney General may cancel removal of, and adjust to the status of . . . an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States if the alien--(A) has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application; (B) has been a person of good moral character during such period; (C) has not been convicted of [certain enumerated offenses]; and (D) establishes 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.” The alien seeking cancellation of removal bears the burden of showing their eligibility for the relief; if he or 2 After two continuances, he filed the application in March 2011. Ramirez based his application on the hardship that would befall his children were he removed, especially his son, who suffers from a serious aural medical condition. After obtaining two more continuances to collect additional information to support his claim of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, Ramirez and Allen appeared before the IJ in November 2012. In separate discussions with ...

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