NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ No. 22-2735 _______________ NAGHMAN GULL, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency Case No. A087-783-553) Immigration Judge: Mirlande Tadal _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on June 26, 2023 Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges (Filed: July 7, 2023) _______________ OPINION * _______________ Krause, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Naghman Gull challenges the discretionary decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to deny him cancellation of removal. Because his challenges * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent. either reach beyond the scope of the BIA’s decision in his case or dispute factual findings as opposed to legal conclusions, we lack jurisdiction to grant his petition for review. We therefore will dismiss the petition. I. BACKGROUND Gull arrived in the United States from Pakistan in 1997 using someone else’s identity. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) discovered this and issued a Notice to Appear at a removal proceeding in 2010, but an immigration judge administratively closed Gull’s case in 2013. DHS sought to reopen the case after Gull was implicated in three domestic disturbances in 2020, two of which led to his arrest. In response, Gull petitioned for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) based on the alleged hardship his removal would cause his children. 1 The immigration judge (IJ) denied the petition, concluding that Gull failed to satisfy two of the eligibility criteria for relief under § 1229b(b)(1): that he be a person of good moral character, and that he show “that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to [his] spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or” a lawful permanent resident. 2 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The IJ also held that, 1 Gull also petitioned for and was denied special-rule cancellation of removal as a “battered” spouse under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2). On appeal, however, he does not press that claim except to preserve it in the event of a remand. 2 In full, eligibility for hardship-based cancellation of removal requires that a petitioner (1) must have been continuously present in the United States for at least ten years, (2) must be a person of good moral character, (3) must not have been convicted of an offense that bars such discretionary relief (e.g., an aggravated felony), and (4) must show “that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to [his] spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or” a lawful permanent resident. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). 2 even assuming Gull was eligible for cancellation of removal, the balance of equities weighed against a favorable exercise of discretion in his case. The BIA also denied relief, agreeing with the IJ that Gull had failed to establish exceptional hardship to Gull’s children, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals