### In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

____________________ No. 19-2126 J OSE A NTONIO S IMENTAL -G ALARZA, Petitioner,

v.

W ILLIAM P. B ARR, A tt orney General of the United States, Respondent

.

____________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals No. A206-274-723

____________________
A RGUED D ECEMBER 17, 2019

— D ECIDED J ANUARY 2, 2020

____________________

Before R IPPLE , S YKES , and S T

. E VE , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM . Jose Antonio Simental-Galarza, a 36-year-old citizen of Mexico, seeks relief fr om removal, contending that he is a ba tt ered spouse and would su ff er extreme hardship ifremoved. The Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled that Simental-Galarza did not qualify for relief because he did not establish hardship. Because the IJ and Board adequately evaluated the relevant factors and the2 No. 19-2126

evidence that Simental-Galarza presented, we deny the petition for review. Background Simental-Galarza unlawfully entered the United States from Durango, Mexico, in 2001. He married Jolene Avitia, a United States citizen, in 2013; they divorced three years later. Around the time of the divorc e, Simental-Galarza came to the

a tt ention of immigration authorit ies. He was charged as removable under the Immigration an d Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), for having en tered and remained in the United States without lawful admission.Simental-Galarza conceded to the charge but sought cancellation of removal as a ba tt ered spouse under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2). Under § 1229b, the A tt orney General may cancel Simental-Galarza’s removal if he demonstrates that he was ba tt ered or subjected to extreme cruelty by his spouse and that his removal would resu lt in extreme hardship. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i)(I), (b)(2)(A)(v ). (In the alternative, Simental-Galarza asked for voluntary departure.) At his immigration hearing, Simental-Galarza o ff ered evidence of physical, verbal, and psychological abuse. During three unhappy years of marriage with Avitia, he explained, she a tt acked him, slapping him more than 20 times. At other times, she insulted him, yelled at him, and called him obscene names. She also often threatened to call the authorities to “come after” him. Finally, she was unfaithful and stole money from him.

Because of the toll that this abuse took on SimentalGalarza and his long ties to the United States, he argued to theIJ that removal would cause him extreme hardship. He testifi ed that the abuse left him depressed and unable to startNo. 19-2126 3

another romantic relationship. His sister-in-law con fi rmed that since the divorce, Simental-Galarza rarely talked, never laughed, and did not trust people. A licensed clinical social worker diagnosed him with anxi ety, severe depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and dependent personality disorder. Therefore, the social worker advised, he should continuetherapy in a stable, supportive environment. SimentalGalarza thought that the United States was the best environment for him: Most of his family resides here—his parents are deceased, and three brothers and two sisters live here. Also, in the 17 years that he has lived here, he has had steady work (as a landscaper, at his brother’s restaurant, and removing snow in the winter). By contrast, “it’s very hard” in Mexico, where wages are low, violence is high, and it is di ffi cult to fi ndemployment without a strong family network. His sister-inlaw predicted that if Simental-Galarza were removed, he would “shut down” physically and emotionally because all his close family members reside in the United States. She also speculated that Mexico did no t have the mental health resources that are available here, but no witness o ff ered evidence that Simental-Galarza could not receive mental health treatment in Mexico.
Simental-Galarza did not receive cancellation of removal. The IJ concluded that he had failed to establish that he is a ba tt ered spouse or that his return to Mexico would cause extreme hardship, as required under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2). Although Simental-Galarza would lose family ties and employment in the United States, the IJ reasoned, that loss is a consequence of most removals, and no medical condition disabled him from fi nding employment in Mexico. (The IJ then grantedSimental-Galarza’s alternative request for voluntary departure.) The Board dismissed Simental-Galarza’s appeal. It4 No. 19-2126

assumed that he was a ba tt ered spouse but a ffi rmed that he had not shown hardship beyond that which is typical from removal. The Board fi rst ruled that Simental-Galarza had not demonstrated that he could not obtain work in Mexico. Andalthough Mexico can be violent, the Board acknowledged, Simental-Galarza had not shown that he would personally face violence. Finally, the Board supplemented the IJ’s rationale by observing that Simental-Galarza had “not shown that he could not obtain treatment for his anxiety and depression in Mexico.” Analysis When, as here, the Board dismis ses an appeal from an IJ’s decision and supplements that decision with its own reasoning, we review both decisions together. See Pouhova v. Holder ,726 F.3d 1007, 1011 (7th Cir. 2013). Because the Board assumed that Simental-Galarza was a ba tt ered spouse under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2), the part ies dispute whether the Board wrongly decided the questionof extreme hardship. Simental-Galarza mainly contends that the IJ and Board did not explicitly mention his post-traumatic stress disorder,dependent personality disorder, and lack of treatment options in Mexico. He argues that the agency’s failure to address this material evidence constituted a legal error and that we should remand for the agency to consider his mental health evidence anew. Before turning to the merits, however, we must fi rst address our ability to consider Simental-Galarza’s petition. Wegenerally do not have jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions from immigration proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). But under § 1252(a)(2)(D), we retainNo. 19-2126 5

jurisdiction to review constituti onal claims and questions of law. Simental-Galarza contends that he has raised a legal question—whether, in deciding the ma tt er of extreme hardship, the IJ and Board failed to consider his evidence about alack of treatment options in Mexico. The government maintains that his petition merely questions the agency’s discretionary decision to deny cancellation of removal, which is unreviewable. Simental-Galarza is correct about jurisdiction. He does not quarrel with how the agency weig hed the evidence that it actually considered; we would not have jurisdiction to review such a dispute. See Cruz-Moyaho v. Holder, 703 F.3d 991, 997 (7th Cir. 2012). Rather, he conten ds that the agency ignored material evidence. That contention generally raises a legal question that this court can review. See, e.g. , Arej v. Sessions , 852 F.3d 665, 667 (7th Cir. 2017); Silais v. Sessions , 855 F.3d 736, 743 (7th Cir. 2017); Iglesias v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 528, 531 (7thCir. 2008). We therefore have jurisdiction to address his argument that the IJ and Board ignored relevant evidence.Four categories of evidence are relevant to whether an alien has met the extreme-hardship standard: (1) the alien’s familial ties in the United States; (2) the signi fi cant conditions of the alien’s health and the availability of medical care in the country of relocation; (3) the cond itions of, and the alien’s ties to, the country of relocation; and (4) the fi nancial impact of departure from the United States. See Ma tt er of Cervantes-Gonzalez , 22 I & N Dec. 560, 565–66 (BIA 1999); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1240.58(b), (c). The IJ and Board “are not required to o ff er an independent analysis of each listed factor.” 8 C.F.R. § 1240.58(a). The IJ and Board discussed all four factors.6 No. 19-2126

To begin with, the IJ and Board considered the evidence that Simental-Galarza presented about the fi rst and fourth factors—his family ties in the United States and the fi nancial impact of removal. In terms offamily ties, the IJ acknowledged Simental-Galarza’s employment and family connections in the United States but concluded that severing these ties is no di ff erent from what happens in a typical removal case. The IJ also considered whether Simental-Galarza, who had worked here for over a decade as a landscaper and in arestaurant, was physically or mentally unable to work in Mexico. Despite Simental-Galarza’s wo rries that wages in Mexico are low and jobs are not as abun dant as in the United States, the IJ did not believe that Simental-Galarza was disabled from fi nding gainful work in Me xico. Thus, in terms of fi nancial impact and lost familial ties, the IJ concluded that the hardship that Simental-Galarza would face was not extreme.Simental-Galarza principally focuses on the other two factors—his poor mental health and need for family support in the United States to help treat him, and the violence in his native state of Durango. His argument, however, is unpersuasive. True, the IJ did not exp licitly analyze Simental-Galarza’s mental health, but the IJ did state in its decision that it considered Simental-Galarza’s documentary evidence, which included his psychological assess ment. Furthermore, the Boarddid address Simental-Galarza’s mental health. It acknowledged Simental-Galarza’s mental ailments and ruled that, despite concerns that the United States was a be tt er place for him to heal, he had not shown that he could not obtain e ff ective treatment for his mental healthconditions in Mexico. TheBoard also acknowledged that Mexico can be violent, but correctly noted that Simental-Galarza had not provided evidence that he personally was at risk of it.No. 19-2126 7

This discussion of the four factors was legally adequate. The Board and IJ considered the evidence that SimentalGalarza presented and decided th at it did not establish extreme hardship under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(v). See PerezFuentes v. Lynch , 842 F.3d 506, 512 (7th Cir. 2016) (“[T]he IJ is not required to mention each piece of evidence in its decision; the IJ need only considerthe evidence.”). Although the agency’s discussion was brief, it su ffi ced to show that the agency considered his arguments. See Cruz-Moyaho , 703 F.3d at 998. To the extent that Simental-Galarza disagrees with the assessment of his argument thatthe United States is a be tt er place for him, as stated earlier, that contention is beyond this court’s jurisdiction. See Jawad v. Holder, 686 F.3d 400, 404 (7th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, Simental-Galarza’s petition for review is DENIED.