NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 21a0431n.06 No. 21-3075 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Sep 15, 2021 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk FUSEINI SEIDU, ) ) Petitioner, ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ) AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF v. ) IMMIGRATION APPEALS ) MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, ) ) OPINION Respondent. ) ) Before: GUY, MOORE, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges. KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Fuseini Seidu petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his application for cancellation of removal. For the reasons that follow, we DENY the petition for review. I. BACKGROUND Seidu is a native and citizen of Ghana. A.R. 356 (Notice to Appear at 1). He was admitted to the United States on November 24, 1995, on a nonimmigrant visa with authorization to remain in the United States for up to six months. Id. Seidu has two children who are United States citizens: a son, who was born on August 28, 2006, and a daughter, who was born on November 2, 2008. A.R. 206, 208 (Birth Certificates). The children live with Seidu’s ex-wife, who is United States citizen and works full time as a registered nurse. A.R. 115 (Hr’g Tr. at 35). Seidu lives seven minutes from his children and visits them every few days or once a week. A.R. 113, 116 (Hr’g Tr. at 33, 36). Seidu’s children attend No. 21-3075, Seidu v. Garland Catholic school. A.R. 116 (Hr’g Tr. at 36). Seidu testified that he provides informal child support of approximately $800 per month, some of which helps to pay for the children’s private school tuition. A.R. 112 (Hr’g Tr. at 32). On November 8, 2013, the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear, charging Seidu as a removable alien. A.R. 356 (Notice to Appear at 1). At a hearing before the immigration judge (“IJ”) on June 11, 2014, Seidu admitted the allegations in the notice to appear, as well as the charge of removal. A.R. 80 (Hr’g Tr. at 2). Seidu sought cancellation of removal, as well as adjustment of status, termination of the proceedings, voluntary departure, and prosecutorial discretion. A.R. 81 (Hr’g Tr. at 3). On November 8, 2018, the IJ held a merits hearing on Seidu’s cancellation of removal claim. A.R. 95–129 (Hr’g Tr.). Seidu testified on his own behalf. A.R. 104 (Hr’g Tr. at 24). The government stipulated that Seidu had been in the United States for at least ten consecutive years and that he did not have any disqualifying convictions. A.R. 103 (Hr’g Tr. at 23). The IJ issued an oral decision that day finding that Seidu was not eligible for cancellation of removal because he did not demonstrate that his removal “would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his children. A.R. 62 (Dec. at 3). Although the IJ found Seidu’s testimony credible, the IJ nonetheless found that Seidu did not meet this standard because the hardship that would be caused …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals