FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 14, 2021 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court ERIK VASQUEZ-CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. No. 20-9591 (Petition for Review) MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, * Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT ** _________________________________ Before HARTZ, PHILLIPS, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Petitioner Erik Vasquez-Castillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of a decision by an immigration judge (IJ) that denied his application for an adjustment of status and a waiver of inadmissibility. He asserts that the IJ improperly used a heightened hardship standard to evaluate his application for a waiver of * On March 11, 2021, Merrick B. Garland became Attorney General of the United States. Consequently, he has been substituted as Respondent. See Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). ** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. inadmissibility, and he claims that the IJ deprived him of due process by issuing a decision without receiving his closing arguments. We deny the petition for review. Petitioner’s first claim fails because he has not adequately challenged the IJ’s discretionary ground for denying his waiver application, an independently dispositive basis for denial that, in any event, we lack jurisdiction to review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). We do have jurisdiction under § 1252(a)(2)(D) to review the due-process claim, but this claim fails because Petitioner has not shown that the IJ actually deprived him of an opportunity to submit closing arguments, and even if the IJ had, Petitioner has not shown prejudice. I. BACKGROUND A. Adjustment of Status Adjustment of status enables certain noncitizens who entered the United States without inspection to obtain permanent-resident status in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i); 8 C.F.R. Part 1245. Two requirements for such adjustment are that the noncitizen be eligible to receive an immigrant visa and be admissible to the United States for permanent residence. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(2). Even if the noncitizen is not admissible, however—perhaps because he committed certain crimes, see id. § 1182(a)(2)—he may be eligible for a discretionary waiver of inadmissibility. See id. § 1182(h); Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I & N Dec. 296, 298–99 (BIA 1996). One ground for eligibility is that his removal “would result in extreme hardship to [his] United States citizen or lawfully resident spouse, parent, son, or daughter.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h)(1)(B). But if he has committed a “violent or dangerous crime[],” 2 he can establish eligibility only by showing that denial of adjustment of status would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” 8 C.F.R. § 1212.7(d). Even then, eligibility does not guarantee the grant of a waiver. The IJ has discretion to deny a waiver …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals