NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ Nos. 17-1847 & 17-3720 ________________ PABLO ANGEL-HERNANDEZ a/k/a Pablo Angel, a/k/a Pablo Hernandez, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A205-834-862) Immigration Judge: Steven A. Morley ________________ No. 17-1847 Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on January 11, 2018 No. 17-3720 Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on January 31, 2019 Before: JORDAN, ROTH, Circuit Judges and MARIANI, District Judge (Opinion filed: February 4, 2019) The Honorable Robert D. Mariani, United States District Court Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. ________________ OPINION ________________ ROTH, Circuit Judge Pablo Angel-Hernandez petitions for review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ordering him removed from the United States. In its Order, the BIA affirmed the denial by an Immigration Judge (IJ) of Angel-Hernandez’s Application for Cancellation of Removal on the ground that Angel-Hernandez failed to demonstrate “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his three U.S.-citizen children—one of the requirements for Cancellation of Removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Specifically, the IJ concluded that although Angel-Hernandez’s children would suffer emotional and financial loss, it was “not substantially beyond that which would ordinarily be expected.”1 The IJ also held that the financial loss the children would suffer could be offset by Angel-Hernandez’s wife’s ability to find work in the “underground economy.”2 The BIA affirmed. Because we conclude that Angel-Hernandez is not entitled to relief on his legal argument, and because we are stripped of jurisdiction to review Angel-Hernandez’s challenge to the discretionary way in which the BIA weighed This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 17-1847 App. 10-12. 2 17-1847 App. 11. 2 the evidence before it, we must deny Angel-Hernandez’s petition in part and dismiss it in part. Angel-Hernandez, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States without inspection in 2000. Angel-Hernandez later married his wife, a citizen of Mexico who also entered the United States without inspection. They have three U.S.-citizen children; the family lives with the wife’s sister and brother-in-law, who pay half of the rent for their apartment. In 2013, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Angel-Hernandez. Angel-Hernandez, represented by counsel, applied for Cancellation of Removal for non-permanent residents under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). He alleged that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his children, given that he is the sole source of financial support for his family. The IJ denied relief, finding that although Angel-Hernandez’s removal would cause emotional and financial loss to his family, such losses would not constitute exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. The IJ noted that Angel-Hernandez’s wife is in good health, and that although she is unauthorized to work, she could likely find employment in the “underground economy that employs individuals without proper papers.”3 The ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals