NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 21-2428 ______________ JOSE MANUEL CRUZ-GARCIA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A201-939-923) Immigration Judge: Pallavi S. Shirole ______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) March 30, 2022 ______________ Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge, and ROSENTHAL, District Judge.* (Filed: March 31, 2022) ______________ OPINION* ______________ * Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge. Jose Manuel Cruz-Garcia petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying cancellation of removal. Because the BIA failed to address arguments Cruz-Garcia raised in his appeal, we will grant the petition and remand. I A Cruz-Garcia is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without inspection in April 2006. Cruz-Garcia has a U.S. Citizen son with his domestic partner, Lesley Hernandez. Cruz-Garcia also has three U.S. Citizen daughters from a prior marriage. In September 2020, the Department of Homeland Security issued Cruz-Garcia a Notice to Appear that charged him with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) for presence in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. Cruz-Garcia conceded removability. B Cruz-Garcia filed an application for cancellation of removal. At his merits hearing, Cruz-Garcia stated, among other things, that if he were removed, Lesley and his son would remain in the United States, they would suffer financial hardship, and Lesley’s mental health struggles could “surface in a way” that may harm their son. A96. Lesley did not testify but did submit a letter that described their son’s medical issues, her work 2 obligations, and her positive views about Cruz-Garcia. Her letter did not mention her own traumatic past or psychological issues. After the hearing, Cruz-Garcia filed a motion, requesting that the IJ admit a declaration from Lesley about the abuse she suffered and a report from Lesley’s psychologist about Lesley’s past trauma and the impact that Cruz-Garcia’s removal would have on her and their son. 1 The IJ denied Cruz-Garcia’s application for cancellation of removal. Although the IJ found Cruz-Garcia credible and a person of good moral character during the required ten-year period for physical presence, the IJ found that Cruz-Garcia failed to establish that his removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” beyond that which “ordinarily result[s] from . . . removal.” A15-16. The IJ found that (1) Cruz- Garcia’s daughters have no medical issues; (2) his son’s eczema and allergies do not require “special medical attention”; and (3) he “provided no evidence” that Lesley would pose a danger to their son. A15. Finally, the IJ held that even if Cruz-Garcia established that …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals