NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0118n.06 Case No. 18-3639 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Mar 13, 2019 FERNANDO RESENDIZ-SALGADO, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, ) APPEALS ) Respondent. ) ) ____________________________________/ BEFORE: KEITH, MERRITT, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges. DAMON J. KEITH, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Fernando Resendiz-Salgado (“Resendiz”) seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order, affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We deny the petition for review. I. Resendiz is a native and citizen of Mexico. In October 2012, the Department of Homeland Security apprehended Resendiz and initiated removal proceedings against him by issuing a notice to appear, charging him with removability as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). In a motion to change venue, Resendiz conceded removability and subsequently applied for relief in the form of cancellation of removal. Case No. 18-3639, Resendiz-Salgado v. Barr On August 2, 2016, Resendiz’s individual hearing was held before an IJ, who heard testimony from Resendiz and his wife, and considered various documents in support of Resendiz’s application. On September 1, 2017, the IJ issued a decision and order denying Resendiz’s application for cancellation of removal. The IJ found that Resendiz failed to demonstrate good moral character and that his removal would not result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his three United States citizen children. Resendiz appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA. On June 29, 2018, the BIA dismissed his appeal, agreeing with the IJ’s finding that Resendiz had “not met his burden to prove that his removal to Mexico will result in the requisite level of hardship … to any of his three young United States citizen children.” For this reason, the BIA declined to address the good moral character finding. Resendiz now timely petitions this court for review of the BIA decision. Resendiz argues the IJ and BIA violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process in determining that he failed to demonstrate that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. He further argues the BIA violated his Fifth Amendment right to a full and fair hearing by failing to address the IJ’s good moral character finding. The Government responds that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. II. Where the BIA reviews the IJ’s decision and issues a separate opinion, rather than summarily affirming the IJ’s decision, we review the BIA’s decision as the final agency determination. Al-Ghorbani v. Holder, 585 F.3d 980, 991 (6th Cir. 2009). “To the extent that the BIA has adopted the IJ’s reasoning, however, we also review the IJ’s decision.” Id. -2- Case No. 18-3639, Resendiz-Salgado v. Barr To establish eligibility for cancellation of removal, Resendeiz was required to show: (1) continuous physical presence in the United States for ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals