Appellate Case: 22-9535 Document: 010110832154 Date Filed: 03/24/2023 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 24, 2023 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court JOSE ANTONIO GALLARDO VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. No. 22-9535 (Petition for Review) MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied petitioner Jose Antonio Gallardo Valdez’s application for cancellation of removal and granted him voluntary departure. The Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissed his appeal. Petitioner has filed a petition for review. We dismiss the petition in part for lack of jurisdiction and, exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), deny the remainder of the petition. * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 22-9535 Document: 010110832154 Date Filed: 03/24/2023 Page: 2 I. BACKGROUND Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. In 2018, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings, alleging he was removable as a noncitizen who entered the United States at an unauthorized time and place. Petitioner conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), claiming his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his eleven-year-old daughter, I.A., who is a United States citizen.1 At a hearing before the IJ, Petitioner testified that I.A. was intelligent, a good student, had many friends, does not require special education classes or tutoring, spoke Spanish at home, and has no medical conditions. Petitioner also testified, however, that when DHS detained him for a month, I.A. became very sad and could not eat, and he was unsure how I.A. would react to a long-term separation. He explained that if he was removed, I.A. would move to Mexico with him because he is the family’s primary provider. He added that five of his brothers and four of his other children live in Mexico, and upon removal he would initially live in the city of Durango, where most of them lived. Petitioner’s wife, Maria, testified before the IJ. She stated she has been with Petitioner for thirty-five years and the two live together with I.A. and their 1 The other prerequisites for cancellation (ten years of physical presence in the United States, good moral character, and the lack of a disqualifying conviction, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A)–(C)) are not at issue in this case. 2 Appellate Case: 22-9535 Document: 010110832154 Date Filed: 03/24/2023 Page: 3 eighteen-year-old daughter. Maria has …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals