FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 26, 2021 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court CARLOS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ- ORTIZ, a/k/a Carlos Rodriguez-Cisneros, Petitioner, v. No. 20-9545 (Petition for Review) ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting United States Attorney General, * Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT ** _________________________________ Before LUCERO, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Carlos Manuel Rodriguez-Ortiz petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) order denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. * On January 20, 2021, Robert M. Wilkinson became Acting Attorney General of the United States. Consequently, his name has been substituted for William P. Barr as Respondent, per Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). ** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. I. Background Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States illegally in 1998. In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, contending he was removable as an alien who was present in the United States without admission or parole. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Through counsel, Petitioner admitted the Department’s factual allegations, conceded removability, and sought relief in the form of cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). To obtain relief, he needed to demonstrate that he had “been a person of good moral character” during the ten-year period before his application, and that his “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his wife and three children, all of whom were United States citizens. See id. § 1229b(b)(1)(B), (D). The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied the application, finding Petitioner did not meet either requirement. With respect to good moral character, the IJ outlined Petitioner’s many contacts with law enforcement in the United States, including two convictions for driving under the influence and a 2012 domestic violence conviction. The IJ acknowledged that most of the incidents occurred outside the relevant ten-year period and that Petitioner had “stayed out of trouble since 2012.” R. at 170. But the IJ noted that Petitioner had been in jail fourteen weeks during the relevant period, and concluded he could not demonstrate the requisite good moral character because 2 of the “seriousness” of the domestic violence and DUI convictions, “the number of offenses,” and his “repeated disregard for the law.” Id. Turning to family hardship, the IJ found Petitioner’s four qualifying family members would stay in the United States upon his removal. The IJ acknowledged Petitioner’s evidence about ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals