USCA11 Case: 21-11751 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-11751 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ MARCOS ESCALONA-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A205-668-995 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-11751 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 2 of 9 2 Opinion of the Court 21-11751 Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Marcos Escalona-Sanchez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. He argues that the board applied an incorrect legal standard when it determined that he hadn’t established that removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his United States citizen son. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). He also asserts that the board violated his son’s right to substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment when it denied his application. After careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we partly dismiss and partly deny his petition. I Escalona-Sanchez is a native and citizen of Mexico who ille- gally entered the United States in 2000. In 2016, he was convicted of driving under the influence and without a license. His convic- tion brought him to the attention of immigration officials, and the Department of Homeland Security took him into custody in Au- gust 2020. The department served Escalona-Sanchez with a notice to appear before an immigration judge, which charged that he was removable for being present without being admitted or paroled. USCA11 Case: 21-11751 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2023 Page: 3 of 9 21-11751 Opinion of the Court 3 See id. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Escalona-Sanchez conceded removability but applied for cancellation of removal. See id. § 1229b. As the basis of his application, Escalona-Sanchez asserted that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen son. At his hearing before the immigration judge, Escalona- Sanchez testified that he “frequently” spent time “doing a lot of ac- tivities” with his eight-year-old son. But he explained that his son lived with his son’s mother and had not lived with him for approx- imately three years. He also testified that his son had asthma, astig- matism, chronic pneumonia, and a learning disability. But a recent medical report documented that his son had “no abnormal find- ings” and “[n]o problems with asthma”; that his asthma was “mild,” “intermittent,” and “[w]ell controlled”; that there were “[n]o concerns about [his] vision”; and that his son’s mother re- ported that his son’s “academic performance [was] good.” And while Escalona-Sanchez testified that he planned to bring his son with him to Mexico if he were removed, he conceded that his son’s mother would not allow him to take their son back to Mexico. His son’s mother worked and financially supported his son while Esca- …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals