USCA11 Case: 20-14297 Date Filed: 11/02/2021 Page: 1 of 13 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-14297 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ RODOLFO ESPINOZA-SOLORZANO, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A201-233-992 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 20-14297 Date Filed: 11/02/2021 Page: 2 of 13 2 Opinion of the Court 20-14297 Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Rodolfo Espinoza-Solorzano seeks review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immi- gration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. To be eligible for cancellation of removal, an applicant must have, among other things, a qualifying relative, such as a child, who is a United States citizen. Espinoza-Solorzano argues that the BIA erred in concluding that his daughter, who was un- der 21 at the time he filed his application, did not qualify as a child for purposes of cancellation of removal. Because the BIA reasona- bly determined that a relative’s age must be assessed at the time the IJ rules on the application for cancellation of removal, not the time the application is filed, we deny his petition. I. BACKGROUND Espinoza-Solorzano is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without inspection. After living in the United States for several decades, he was arrested and charged with identity fraud. He pled guilty to the lesser charge of criminal trespass and was sentenced to probation. The incident brought him to the at- tention of immigration authorities, who began removal proceed- ings. In immigration proceedings, Espinoza-Solorzano conceded that he was removable. USCA11 Case: 20-14297 Date Filed: 11/02/2021 Page: 3 of 13 20-14297 Opinion of the Court 3 In 2011, Espinoza-Solorzano applied for cancellation of re- moval. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. To be eligible, Espinoza-Solorzano needed to have a qualifying relative—here, a U.S. citizen child under 21 years old—who would suffer hardship if he were re- moved to Mexico. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(b)(1); 1229b(b)(1)(D). He claimed his daughter, who was 15 years old at the time, as the qualifying relative who would suffer hardship if he were re- moved. She is intellectually disabled; her “cognitive ability is sig- nificantly below that of her peers.” AR at 111. 1 Espinoza- Solorzano was her primary caretaker: he brought her to doctor’s appointments, took her to school, and worked with her school to ensure that she received specialized academic support and pro- gressed in her learning. Espinoza-Solorzano’s application for cancellation of re- moval remained pending for several years. 2 The IJ finally adjudi- cated his application in 2018. By that time, Espinoza-Solorzano’s daughter was 22 years old and had aged out of “child” status. He argued that her diminished mental capacity and continued de- pendence on him for her daily needs meant that she should still be 1 “AR” refers to the administrative record. 2 Espinoza-Solorzano had his first immigration hearing in …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals