USCA11 Case: 20-12753 Date Filed: 04/26/2021 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-12753 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A216-031-542 ISRAEL SARABIA-ARREDONDO, a.k.a. Israel Sarabia-Arredondo Arredondo a.k.a. Israel Arredondo, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (April 26, 2021) Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 20-12753 Date Filed: 04/26/2021 Page: 2 of 9 Israel Sarabia-Arredondo 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 under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Sarabia-Arredondo is a native and citizen of Mexico, who arrived in the United States without being admitted or paroled. In 2017, he was served with a Notice to Appear that charged him with removability pursuant to INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Sarabia-Arredondo conceded removability and submitted an application for cancellation of removal. In support of that application, he alleged that he had been in the United States since 2002, that he was a person of good moral character, and that his two daughters were qualifying relatives. In a prehearing memorandum, he alleged that he entered the United States in 1991, that he was a person of good moral character, that he had only been charged or convicted of misdemeanor traffic offenses, and that his removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his two daughters. To that last point, Sarabia-Arredondo alleged that, if he were removed, his daughters would suffer from a lower standard of living, diminished educational opportunities, and poor economic conditions. The IJ found that Sarabia-Arredondo’s allegations were insufficient to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, and found Sarabia- Arredondo removable. The IJ granted voluntary departure with a $20,000 bond. 2 USCA11 Case: 20-12753 Date Filed: 04/26/2021 Page: 3 of 9 Sarabia-Arredondo appealed to the BIA. The BIA noted that it reviews findings of fact for clear error and all other issues, including legal issues, de novo. In the next sentence, the BIA stated that it discerned “no clear error” in the IJ’s determination that Sarabia-Arredondo was ineligible for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, the BIA dismissed Sarabia-Arredondo’s appeal and reinstated the voluntary departure order. The BIA further warned that the grant of voluntary departure would automatically terminate if Sarabia-Arredondo, prior to departing, filed a judicial challenge to its final order. Sarabia-Arredondo now petitions us for review. Sarabia-Arredondo argues first that the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard for cancellation of removal is void for vagueness. Second, he argues that the BIA erred by reviewing the IJ’s determination that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal for clear error. Last, Sarabia-Arredondo argues that the regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i), which automatically terminates a voluntary departure order when a person subject to removal petitions for review, is ultra vires of the voluntary departure statute, INA § 240B, 8 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals