USCA11 Case: 21-11147 Date Filed: 07/22/2022 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-11147 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ HECTOR ZAMUNDIO-ALUAREZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A200-276-565 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-11147 Date Filed: 07/22/2022 Page: 2 of 10 2 Opinion of the Court 21-11147 Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Petitioner Hector Zamudio-Alvarez1, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the final order by the Board of Immigra- tion Appeals (the “BIA”) denying his application for cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). As discussed below, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order deny- ing Petitioner’s application. Accordingly, we dismiss Petitioner’s appeal. BACKGROUND Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, claims he entered the United States in January 2001 in Arizona. It is undisputed that Petitioner entered without inspection. In June 2011, the Depart- ment of Homeland Security (“DHS”) served Petitioner with a no- tice to appear in removal proceedings. The notice charged Peti- tioner with being removable as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. Appearing before the IJ, Petitioner admitted the allegations in the notice to appear and conceded removability. However, Pe- titioner filed an application for cancellation of removal pursuant to 1 Our docket refers to Petitioner as “Hector Zamundio-Aluarez” but we refer to him in this opinion by the name that appears on his birth certificate, “Hector Zamudio-Alvarez.” USCA11 Case: 21-11147 Date Filed: 07/22/2022 Page: 3 of 10 21-11147 Opinion of the Court 3 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), which authorizes cancellation when the re- moval of a deportable individual who has been continuously pre- sent in the United States for ten years would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative in the United States, assuming certain other requirements are met. Petitioner stated in his application that he satisfied the continuous presence requirement because he had lived in the United States since 2001 and that his removal would cause extreme hardship for his children Aron Zamudio Frausto and Jared Zamudio Cortes, who are United States citizens and who at the time of Petitioner’s application were eight and four years old, respectively. In support of his application, Petitioner produced birth certificates for Aron and Jared, medical records indicating that Jared has a congenital condition in his left ear called cholesteatoma that had required surgery and treatment, tax documents, and letters of support, among other items. The IJ held a hearing on Petitioner’s application in Septem- ber 2017. Petitioner, the sole witness at the hearing, testified that he entered the United States in January 2001 in Arizona. To estab- lish Petitioner’s ten-year continuous presence in the United States, Petitioner’s attorney questioned him extensively about whether he had left the United States since his original entry in 2001. In his initial application …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals