and had no disqualifying criminal convictions.
Nos. 18-3338/19-3357, Galindo-Munoz v. Barr
Nonetheless, the judge found that Galindo-Munoz failed to establish good moral character, or that
his removal would result in "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to his qualifying
relatives. As to good moral character, the immigration judge noted that although Galindo-Munoz's
six-month "diversion" was not dispositive,
[t]his is essentially a question of proof. We have [Galindo-Munoz's] self- serving testimony that he has reconciled with the mother of his children, and they live together. His son also testified that his parents live together. However, there is only one person who could tell the Court if [Galindo-Munoz] and Ms. Flores really got back together, and how long they were apart, and the actual circumstances of their separation. That person is Ms. Flores. She chose to not testify, and there is no affidavit or letter from her in the record, explaining the events that gave rise to the separation and the incident that led to [Galindo-Munoz's] conviction. [Galindo-Munoz] did testify that he accused her of seeing another man while they were separated. He admitted touching her during the incident, and there was testimony that he threw a laptop. [Galindo-Munoz] also admitted that this altercation took place in front of Ms. Flores's fourteen-year-old son. Her testimony would have gone far to show if he now is in better control of his temper, among other issues.
As for exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, the immigration judge found that,
despite Junior's cleft palate, "[o]n this record" Galindo-Munoz had failed to show that his removal
from the United States would be an extreme hardship to Junior for several reasons.
First, it was "not entirely clear" that Junior would actually accompany Galindo-Munoz to
Mexico. Galindo-Munoz gave inconsistent testimony on this point: In 2013, Galindo-Munoz
stated on his cancellation application that the children would not go with him. In 2016, Galindo-
Munoz testified that they would go with him because Galindo-Munoz wanted to keep the family
together. The immigration judge felt that Flores's testimony "would have been extremely helpful"
to resolve this question, especially since Junior's doctors are in the United States. Furthermore,
the immigration judge stressed that Galindo-Munoz did not offer any evidence that Junior would
be deprived of comparable medical care if he followed Galindo-Munoz to Mexico.
Nos. 18-3338/19-3357, Galindo-Munoz v. Barr
Second, the record does not suggest that Junior would suffer exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship if Galindo-Munoz went to Mexico and Junior remained in the United States. To
the contrary, Galindo-Munoz testified that (1) Flores took Junior to his medical appointments
during the period of court-ordered separation, (2) Medicaid largely covered Junior's medical bills,
and (3) Flores works to support the children.
Accordingly, the immigration judge denied Galindo-Munoz's request for cancellation of
removal.
The Board's Denial of Galindo-Munoz's Appeal. Galindo-Munoz appealed to the Board.
He also filed a motion to reopen, asserting that he had new facts to show the hardship to Junior.
DHS filed a motion for summary affirmance. The Board dismissed the appeal,