USCA11 Case: 22-10477 Date Filed: 10/26/2022 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-10477 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ ROLANDO SABILLON VASQUEZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A206-839-437 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-10477 Date Filed: 10/26/2022 Page: 2 of 5 2 Opinion of the Court 22-10477 Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Rolando Sabillon Vasquez seeks review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Because we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision, we dis- miss Vasquez’s petition for review. Vasquez, a native and citizen of Honduras, entered the United States without inspection in 2001. In 2015 the Department of Homeland Security issued him a notice to appear, charging him as removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) as a noncitizen present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Vasquez con- ceded removability but applied for cancellation of removal pursu- ant to the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The Attorney General has the discretion to cancel the re- moval of certain noncitizens who establish that: (1) they have been continuously physically present in the United States for at least 10 years; (2) they have been “person[s] of good moral character” while present in the United States; (3) they have not been convicted of any specified criminal offenses; and (4) their “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying rel- ative who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Vasquez asserted that he met all four of these USCA11 Case: 22-10477 Date Filed: 10/26/2022 Page: 3 of 5 22-10477 Opinion of the Court 3 requirements. As to the fourth requirement, Vasquez claimed that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his wife and children, who are United States citizens. He elaborated at a hearing before an IJ and in supporting documen- tation, explaining that each of his children had medical issues that required treatment that was possibly prohibitively expensive in Honduras and also inferior to the healthcare the children would receive in the United States. Vasquez admitted at the hearing that he had been arrested numerous times, including two arrests (one of which resulted in a conviction) for driving under the influence. The IJ denied Vasquez’s application for cancellation of re- moval, concluding, in relevant part, that Vasquez failed to demon- strate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his wife and children if he were ordered removed. 1 The IJ further concluded that even if Vasquez demonstrated eligibility for cancellation of re- moval, cancellation of removal should be denied as a matter of dis- cretion based on Vasquez’s “reckless disregard for the laws” of the United States. AR at 86–87. 2 1 The …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals