NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 21a0345n.06 No. 20-4005 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jul 16, 2021 ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk MIGUEL ANGEL RAMIREZ-GARCIA, ) Petitioner, ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ) THE DECISION OF THE UNITED v. ) STATES BOARD OF ) IMMIGRATION APPEALS MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, ) Respondent. ) OPINION ) Before: SILER, MOORE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges. SILER, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Miguel Angel Ramirez-Garcia (Ramirez) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) and Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decisions denying his application for cancellation of removal from the United States. Agreeing with the BIA’s conclusion that Ramirez did not establish the requisite “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his children resulting from his removal to afford cancellation of his removal, we deny his petition. After conceding his removability from the United States on the grounds charged in his Notice to Appear, Ramirez sought cancellation of that removal. “The cancellation-of-removal statute allows the Attorney General to cancel the removal of an immigrant if the immigrant satisfies four eligibility requirements[,]” only one of which is at issue here: Ramirez must establish “that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to [his] . . . child[ren] . . . .” Singh v. Rosen, 984 F.3d 1142, 1147 (6th Cir. 2021) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)). Both the IJ and the BIA concluded that Ramirez failed to satisfy this necessary element, the BIA having No. 20-4005, Ramirez-Garcia v. Garland essentially adopting the conclusion and rationale of the IJ. See Zhao v. Holder, 569 F.3d 238, 246 (6th Cir. 2009) (“When the BIA adopts the IJ’s reasoning and supplements the IJ’s opinion, that opinion, as supplemented by the BIA, becomes the basis for review. . . . The Court of Appeals ‘directly reviews the decision of the IJ while considering the additional comment made by the BIA.’” (citations omitted)). Ramirez and his spouse together have three children born in the United States ages fourteen, eleven, and eight (at the time of the June 1, 2017 hearing before the IJ). Ramirez, a native of Mexico, admitted that, if he is removed from the United States to Mexico, his spouse and children would accompany him. Acknowledging that there would obviously be “some hardship” on the children in such a scenario, the IJ found that Ramirez failed to show “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” The IJ first noted that the children have no medical problems and “do fairly well in school, but they do not have a compelling special need in school.” The IJ also noted that the children “are able to speak and understand Spanish, while they read and write English.” The BIA adopted the decision of the IJ, noting that the “children are currently healthy[,] . . . do not have any chronic, serious medical issues[,] . . . [and] do not have any special needs in school[.]” Similarly acknowledging that the “children will likely experience emotional adjustments and financial hardship[,]” …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals