United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-2745 ___________________________ Jaime Barboza-Cruz Petitioner v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States Respondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: May 9, 2023 Filed: July 19, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jaime Barboza-Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review from an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision to deny his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review in part and deny the petition for review in part. I. Barboza-Cruz entered the United States without being lawfully admitted in the early 2000s. On April 16, 2010, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) commenced removal proceedings against him, charging Barboza-Cruz with removability pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as an alien present without being admitted or paroled. Barboza-Cruz admitted to the factual allegations charged in the Notice to Appear and conceded removability. However, he submitted applications for asylum, statutory withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), cancellation of removal, and voluntary departure. Regarding his application for cancellation of removal, Barboza-Cruz argued that his removal would result in an “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his daughter, a qualifying United States citizen. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). Specifically, he argued that his removal would likely render him unable to pay child support and affect the close relationship he has with his daughter, causing her economic and emotional hardship. In support of his argument, the IJ heard testimony from Barboza-Cruz as well as the daughter’s mother. In reviewing the claim, the IJ noted that the daughter had no health issues and was doing well in school. While the IJ admitted that there would be emotional hardship, he found that such hardship did not “rise to the level of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” needed to obtain relief. Accordingly, the IJ denied Barboza-Cruz’s application for cancellation of removal. The IJ also denied his applications for asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and CAT protection but granted his application for voluntary departure. Barboza-Cruz appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA. First, he argued that the proceedings needed to be remanded to the IJ because the transcript of his proceedings was defective, preventing the BIA from conducting a full and fair review of his appeal. Specifically, Barboza-Cruz noted that the portions of the transcript containing the colloquy between the IJ and the daughter’s mother were missing. He next argued, as relevant to this appeal, that the IJ erred in denying his -2- application for cancellation of removal. He contended that the daughter’s economic and emotional hardship met the threshold for relief and that the IJ did not fully consider and weigh the evidence before him. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed the appeal. It noted that Barboza-Cruz had not identified the information missing from the transcript that would impact …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals