Court Opinion

ID: 9963063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 16:00:52.151823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:39.694888
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-9556    Document: 010111037368        Date Filed: 04/24/2024     Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                           Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                           April 24, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  RAFAEL MONTEJANO-MARTINEZ,

        Petitioner,

  v.                                                           No. 23-9556
                                                           (Petition for Review)
  MERRICK B. GARLAND,
  United States Attorney General,

        Respondent.
                          _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

       An immigration judge (IJ) denied Mr. Montejano’s application for cancellation

 of removal and ordered him removed to Mexico. Mr. Montejano appealed the IJ’s

 decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA dismissed his appeal

 from the denial of cancellation but remanded to the IJ to determine Mr. Montejano’s

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
 argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent,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.
Appellate Case: 23-9556    Document: 010111037368        Date Filed: 04/24/2024     Page: 2

 eligibility for voluntary departure.1 He now petitions for review of the BIA’s denial

 of his application for cancellation of removal. We deny the petition for review.

                                    BACKGROUND

        1. Evidence Mr. Montejano presented to the agency

        Mr. Montejano is a native and citizen of Mexico who was born in 1973. At the

 hearing on his application, he testified he came to the United States as a young child.

 He then left this country when he was ten years old and lived in Mexico until he

 returned to the United States in 2004. At the time of the hearing, he was 45 years

 old.

        In 2018 the Department of Homeland Security served him with a Notice to

 Appear (NTA) alleging he had entered the United States without being admitted or

 paroled after inspection. Mr. Montejano admitted the allegations in the NTA and

 conceded his removability, but he sought cancellation of removal.

        To be eligible for a discretionary grant of cancellation of removal,

 Mr. Montejano had to establish four elements: (1) physical presence in the United

 States for a continuous period of not less than ten years; (2) good moral character

 during that time; (3) no convictions for certain enumerated offenses; and (4) “that

 removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s

        1
         Notwithstanding the remand for further proceedings on the voluntary
 departure issue, the BIA’s order is a final order of removal subject to our review
 under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Batubara v. Holder, 733 F.3d 1040, 1042-43 (10th Cir.
 2013) (ongoing proceedings concerning voluntary departure do not affect the finality
 of a removal order because voluntary departure affects only the manner of the
 non-citizen’s exit from this country, not the issue of removal itself).
                                            2
Appellate Case: 23-9556    Document: 010111037368        Date Filed: 04/24/2024     Page: 3

 spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully

 admitted for permanent residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A)-(D). The government

 stipulated that he met the physical presence requirement, had not been convicted of a

 disqualifying offense, and had three qualifying relatives: his 13-year-old son, his

 lawful permanent resident (LPR) mother, and his citizen father. The remaining

 issues to be resolved were whether he had the requisite good moral character and

 whether his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to

 any or all of his qualifying relatives. Only if these requirements were met would the

 IJ need to consider whether he warranted a favorable exercise of discretion.

       At the hearing Mr. Montejano testified about his criminal history. Other than

 relatively minor offenses, he had been convicted of a Utah Class B misdemeanor

 conviction for driving under the influence (DUI). He explained the circumstances

 that led to the DUI offense, his compliance with the conditions of his sentence, and

 the lessons he had learned from his conviction and sentence.

       Mr. Montejano also testified about his family members and the hardship they

 would face if he were removed to Mexico. His son, G.M., thirteen, was a United

 States citizen born in this country. If Mr. Montejano were removed, G.M. would not

 go with him to Mexico. This would cause G.M. hardship, because he and

 Mr. Montejano were close, and Mr. Montejano tried to spend as much time as he

 could with G.M. They did things together, like going to movies.

       Mr. Montejano testified that G.M. did not have any medical conditions. His

 wife, who was not a qualifying relative, also had no medical issues and was

                                             3
Appellate Case: 23-9556   Document: 010111037368       Date Filed: 04/24/2024     Page: 4

 employed. But Mr. Montejano stated he did not think she would be able to pay the

 family’s bills if he were removed.

       Mr. Montejano also discussed hardship to his LPR mother. He stated she had

 serious medical issues, requiring doctor’s appointments, but he was not sure exactly

 what those issues were. If Mr. Montejano were removed, she would not go with him

 to Mexico because she needed to go to doctor’s appointments in the United States.

       Finally, Mr. Montejano discussed hardship to his United States citizen father.

 His father had diabetes (for which he had been hospitalized), and liver and kidney

 problems. Mr. Montejano provided his father with between $100 and $200 every

 month to help him financially because his father was not working. His father would

 not join him in Mexico because he needed to receive treatment in the United States.

 He would suffer financially and emotionally if Mr. Montejano were removed to

 Mexico.

       Mr. Montejano’s father also testified at the hearing. He stated he was 64 years

 old, had diabetes and kidney problems, and could not work but received social

 security benefits. He was seeing a kidney specialist and had spent time in the

 hospital three years earlier for intestinal problems. He had medical insurance and

 lived in his own home with his wife and daughter. His daughter helped him

 financially and his wife received retirement pay from Dillard’s. He also received

 financial help from his two other sons, who live in Utah. Consistent with his son’s

 testimony, he stated that if Mr. Montejano were removed to Mexico, he would not go

                                           4
Appellate Case: 23-9556    Document: 010111037368        Date Filed: 04/24/2024    Page: 5

 with him because he receives medical treatment in the United States. He estimated

 Mr. Montejano provided him with support of between $100 and $400 per month.

       In addition to this testimonial evidence, Mr. Montejano also supplied

 documentary evidence in support of his claim. This included background

 information about his application along with his father’s medical records,

 Mr. Montejano’s employment records (including W-2 and tax forms), and

 information about his criminal history.

       2. The IJ’s decision

       Although he cited Mr. Montejano’s “impressive work history,” his

 “outstanding parenting,” and his “strong family ties in the United States,” R. at 57,

 the IJ concluded he had failed to meet his burden of establishing good moral

 character. The IJ cited the “aggravating” circumstances of Mr. Montejano’s DUI

 conviction, including his high blood alcohol content and his erratic driving when he

 was stopped by the Utah Highway Patrol. Id. at 58.

       The IJ also concluded Mr. Montejano had failed to establish exceptional and

 unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives. Based on the hearing testimony, the IJ

 analyzed the effect on those relatives if Mr. Montejano was the only person in his

 extended family who relocated to Mexico. The IJ acknowledged “[t]hat scenario

 would certainly create hardship for all three permanent residents.” Id. at 59. And

 although “all three qualifying relatives would suffer emotional and financial

 hardship,” Mr. Montejano had not shown “that the hardship that they would suffer

                                            5
Appellate Case: 23-9556    Document: 010111037368       Date Filed: 04/24/2024       Page: 6

 would be substantially beyond the ordinary hardship that would be expected when a

 close family member leaves the United States.” Id. at 61.

       Although G.M. would no longer be living with both parents if Mr. Montejano

 were removed to Mexico, G.M. had no medical issues, was doing well in school, was

 living with his mother, and would have the emotional and financial support of other

 family members who lived nearby. Mr. Montejano’s parents lived in their own home

 with an adult daughter and received support from all five of their adult children

 living in Utah. If Mr. Montejano were removed to Mexico, their other children could

 continue to provide them with support and could perhaps increase their contribution

 to compensate for the loss of his financial support. In addition, both parents had

 retirement income and Mr. Montejano’s father had government-sponsored health

 insurance to help with his medical bills. The IJ specifically considered the parents’

 health, noting there was no evidence their healthcare treatment would be

 discontinued if Mr. Montejano were removed.

       3. The BIA’s decision

       Mr. Montejano appealed to the BIA, which adopted and affirmed the IJ’s

 decision denying cancellation of removal. The BIA specifically mentioned and

 affirmed both the IJ’s good moral character and hardship determinations. But it

 remanded for further proceedings before the IJ on the voluntary departure issue.

                                            6
Appellate Case: 23-9556    Document: 010111037368        Date Filed: 04/24/2024     Page: 7

                                     DISCUSSION

       1. Standard of Review

       This case involves a single BIA member’s brief order under 8 C.F.R.

 § 1003.1(e)(5).2 We review that order as the final agency determination, “limit[ing]

 our review to issues specifically addressed therein.” Diallo v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d

 1274, 1279 (10th Cir. 2006). When the BIA adopts the IJ’s rationale by reference, as

 it did here, “[w]e may consult the IJ’s decision to give substance to the BIA’s

 reasoning.” Razkane v. Holder, 562 F.3d 1283, 1287 (10th Cir. 2009). “We review

 the BIA’s legal determinations de novo, and its findings of fact for substantial

 evidence.” Aguayo v. Garland, 78 F.4th 1210, 1216 (10th Cir. 2023).

       2. Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship

       While this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court abrogated our decision in

 Galeano-Romero v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1176, 1182-84 (10th Cir. 2020), and determined

 that the BIA’s application of the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship”

 standard under § 1229b(b)(1)(D) to a given set of facts is a question of law subject to

 judicial review. Wilkinson v. Garland, 144 S. Ct. 780, 787-88 & n.2 (2024). The

 Court emphasized, however, that “[b]ecause this mixed question is primarily factual,

 that review is deferential.” Id. at 792-93; see also Martinez v. Garland, ___F.4th___,

 No. 23-9593, 2024 WL 1626336, at *2 (10th Cir. Apr. 16, 2024) (stating that under

       2
        The BIA’s decision was issued by a Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge
 appointed by the Attorney General. See generally 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(1), (4).
                                            7
Appellate Case: 23-9556    Document: 010111037368         Date Filed: 04/24/2024      Page: 8

 Wilkinson, “we apply a deferential standard to review the BIA’s hardship

 determination”).

       Mr. Montejano primarily argues the BIA departed from its precedent by failing

 to account for the totality of the circumstances and the cumulative effect on his

 qualifying relatives if he is removed to Mexico. The BIA’s precedent requires that

 “all hardship factors should be considered in the aggregate when assessing

 exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N.

 Dec. 56, 64 (BIA 2001). The ultimate issue is whether the applicant has

 demonstrated that his qualifying relatives would suffer hardship that is substantially

 beyond that which would ordinarily be expected to result from the person’s

 departure. Id. at 59.

       As Mr. Montejano implicitly acknowledges, see Pet’r. Opening Br. at 13, the

 BIA referred to (and adopted) the IJ’s consideration of hardship factors in their

 totality. See R. at 6 (BIA’s decision twice stating that “the [IJ] properly considered

 the numerous hardship factors in their totality, but determined that they did not rise

 to the requisite level of hardship”); see also 61 (IJ’s decision concluding, after

 analyzing the financial, emotional, and medical hardship to all three qualifying

 relatives, that “all three qualifying relatives would suffer emotional and financial

 hardship” but that Mr. Montejano had not established “the hardship that they would

 suffer would be substantially beyond the ordinary hardship that would be expected

 when a close family member leaves the United States”). Mr. Montejano reiterates

 some of the hardships his qualifying relatives may face as the result of his removal,

                                             8
Appellate Case: 23-9556    Document: 010111037368       Date Filed: 04/24/2024     Page: 9

 see Pet’r Opening Br. at 11-12, but fails to show that the BIA ignored or failed to

 discuss the aggregate impact of these harms when making its hardship determination.

       Mr. Montejano further argues the BIA’s decision is inconsistent with a case it

 cited, In re Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 467 (BIA 2002) (en banc).3 The facts

 and circumstances of Recinas differ significantly from those of this case. In Recinas,

 the respondent was the single mother of six children, four of whom were United

 States citizens ranging in age from 5 to 12 years old. She depended on her mother to

 watch the children while she worked, and there was no indication the children’s

 father remained actively involved in their lives. The children would return to Mexico

 with their mother if she were removed but they had never even traveled there and had

 difficulty speaking Spanish. Under these circumstances, the BIA found the case

 presented a close question, and fell “on the outer limit of the narrow spectrum of

 cases in which the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard will be met.”

 Id. at 470. The BIA nevertheless found the hardship to be exceptional and extremely

 unusual, given the cumulative hardship factors, which included “the heavy financial

 and familial burden on the adult respondent, the lack of support from the children’s

 father, the United States citizen children’s unfamiliarity with the Spanish language,

 the lawful residence in this country of all of the respondent’s immediate family, and

       3
         Mr. Montejano also contends the BIA’s decision is inconsistent with two
 other cases it cited. But he does not develop a specific argument concerning any
 inconsistency with those cases. We have examined the cases he cites and find no
 inconsistency with the BIA’s decision. Given the lack of a developed argument on
 this point, however, we decline to discuss these cases in detail.
                                            9
Appellate Case: 23-9556    Document: 010111037368        Date Filed: 04/24/2024    Page: 10

  the concomitant lack of family in Mexico.” Id. at 472. Mr. Montejano’s case does

  not present such an extraordinary, cumulative burden of unalleviated hardship

  factors, and the IJ and BIA’s hardship analysis in his case was not impermissibly

  inconsistent with Recinas’s cumulative approach.

        In sum, Mr. Montejano has not established that, contrary to its own caselaw,

  the BIA failed to assess the aggregate impact of hardship to all of his qualifying

  relatives. Nor has he shown, under our deferential standard of review, that the BIA

  erred in determining that he failed to show the required level of hardship. We

  therefore deny the petition for review on the hardship issue.

        3. Good Moral Character

        As stated earlier, Mr. Montejano had to establish all four criteria in

  § 1229b(b)(1)(A)-(D) to be eligible for cancellation of removal. Thus, his failure to

  establish any one element would preclude his eligibility for relief. Because we have

  upheld the BIA’s unfavorable hardship determination, we need not further consider

  the issues he raises concerning its independent ground for denial, the BIA’s

  determination that he lacked good moral character.

                                     CONCLUSION

        The petition for review is denied.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Bobby R. Baldock
                                              Circuit Judge

                                             10