PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1485 SERVANDO GONZALEZ GALVAN, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Argued: May 4, 2021 Decided: July 27, 2021 Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition for review denied by published opinion. Judge Keenan wrote the opinion, in which Judge Niemeyer and Senior Judge Traxler joined. ARGUED: Abby Holland, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Micah S. Engler, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Nicolas Sansone, Supervising Attorney, Appellate Litigation Program, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Genevieve M. Kelly, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. BARBARA MILANO KEENAN, Circuit Judge: Servando Gonzalez Galvan, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a final order of removal entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board). The Board affirmed the holding of the immigration judge (IJ) that Gonzalez Galvan failed to prove one of the statutory eligibility requirements for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. In particular, the IJ held that Gonzalez Galvan had failed as a matter of law to prove under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D) that his removal would impose an “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” on his United States citizen children. We conclude that this statutory standard of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” presents a mixed question of law and fact, which we retain jurisdiction to review under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020). However, upon our review of the record, we conclude that the Board and the IJ did not err in determining that Gonzalez Galvan failed as a matter of law to prove this statutory eligibility requirement for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, we deny Gonzalez Galvan’s petition. I. Gonzalez Galvan entered the United States in February 2003 on a six-month nonimmigrant visa, but has remained in this country since the expiration of that visa. Prior to his detention, Gonzalez Galvan resided in Silver Spring, Maryland with his wife, a citizen of Mexico without legal immigration status, and their four children, who are all United States citizens. Gonzalez Galvan was employed as a general manager at a local 2 Dunkin Donuts store for 16 years and, more recently, has performed various construction jobs. He also was an active member of his church and regularly helped his children with their many activities. In 2006 and again in 2019, Gonzalez Galvan was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. Following his second conviction, after the Department of Homeland Security issued him a Notice to Appear, Gonzalez Galvan conceded removability but applied for cancellation of removal. Among other things, Gonzalez Galvan contended that his removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” for his four …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals