USCA11 Case: 20-11247 Date Filed: 12/10/2020 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-11247 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A205-005-849 FRANCISCO EZEQUIEL GUERRERO-CRUZ, a.k.a. FRANCESCO EZEQUIEL CRUZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (December 10, 2020) USCA11 Case: 20-11247 Date Filed: 12/10/2020 Page: 2 of 6 Before MARTIN, BRANCH, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Francisco Guerrero-Cruz (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the order by Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The IJ’s decision denied Petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal. No reversible error has been shown; we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. In July 2011, the Department of Homeland Security served Petitioner with a Notice to Appear. The notice charged Petitioner as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as an alien present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. Petitioner, through his lawyer, conceded removability. Petitioner later applied for cancellation of removal, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). In his application, Petitioner listed his two minor children (each of whom is a United States citizen) as qualifying relatives who would suffer hardship if Petitioner were removed. 2 USCA11 Case: 20-11247 Date Filed: 12/10/2020 Page: 3 of 6 Following a hearing, the IJ denied Petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal. In pertinent part, the IJ determined that Petitioner had failed to demonstrate that his removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to Petitioner’s children.1 The IJ found that -- although Petitioner’s children would experience some hardship by moving to Mexico -- such hardship would be limited to the “type of hardship that normally results from an alien’s deportation.” The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. 2 We review de novo our subject matter jurisdiction. See Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2006). The Attorney General has discretion to cancel the removal of an alien who shows, among other things, that “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s . . . child, who is a citizen of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). 1 The IJ also determined that Petitioner had failed to show that he had resided continuously in the United States for at least ten years, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A). Because the BIA declined expressly to address the continuous-physical-presence issue, that issue is not before us in this appeal. See Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016) (“We do not consider issues that were not reached by the BIA.”). 2 In addition to affirming the IJ’s decision on the merits, the BIA rejected Petitioner’s arguments (1) that a remand was necessary so that Petitioner could pursue a “U” visa, and (2) that Petitioner was deprived of due process based on the IJ’s denial of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals