USCA11 Case: 21-11148 Date Filed: 02/15/2022 Page: 1 of 11 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-11148 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ OSCAR GOMEZ-GARCIA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A075-787-988 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-11148 Date Filed: 02/15/2022 Page: 2 of 11 2 Opinion of the Court 21-11148 Before LUCK, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Oscar Gomez-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal under the Immigration & Nationality Act and denying his motion to remand. He argues that the Board abused its discretion by denying his remand motion because it applied an incorrect legal standard, engaged in impermissible factfinding, and failed to give reasoned consideration to his arguments and evidence. He also contends that the immigration judge and the Board violated his children’s due process rights by creating a categorical rule requiring a presumption in favor of parents’ wishes and imposing on children the burden of proving that their deportation from the United States was not in their best interest. Upon careful consideration, we deny Gomez-Garcia’s petition. I. Background On August 9, 2013, the Department of Homeland Security placed Gomez-Garcia into removal proceedings by filing a notice to appear. Gomez-Garcia admitted removability and filed an appli- cation for cancellation of removal as a defense. On October 16, 2017, he attended a hearing before an immigration judge where he and his daughter testified as to why he should not be removed. USCA11 Case: 21-11148 Date Filed: 02/15/2022 Page: 3 of 11 21-11148 Opinion of the Court 3 Gomez-Garcia testified that his thirteen-year-old daughter, Giselle, had difficulties communicating with her teachers and class- mates at school, that she had not been treated for these issues, and that they had been somewhat alleviated after he bought her a small dog. His daughter also had trouble sleeping, had been bullied at school, had grades that were “not that bad, but . . . not actually that good either,” and had requested to be home schooled, although her father had declined the request. Neither of Gomez-Garcia’s children had ever lived in Mexico, and neither knew anyone there. And while his daughter spoke some Spanish, his son spoke none. Despite these facts, Gomez-Garcia repeatedly stated that his family would follow him to Mexico if he was deported because no one else in the United States could support them and because he thought keeping the family together was important to their well- being. Giselle testified that she was bullied at school, that this had caused her to get poor grades over the last year, that the bullying sometimes extended outside of school, and that she had never met any of her relatives in Mexico. She also testified that although she would follow her father to Mexico, she did not want …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals