Court Opinion

ID: 9408230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 21:00:34.633724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:42.826158
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2039      Doc: 28         Filed: 07/10/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2039

        TEOFILO CALVA RAMIREZ,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

        On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

        Submitted: June 8, 2023                                           Decided: July 10, 2023

        Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Nash Fayad, FAYAD LAW, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian
        M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Assistant
        Director, Abigail E. Leach, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil
        Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
        Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2039       Doc: 28          Filed: 07/10/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Teofilo Calva Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an

        order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the

        immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal

        under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Ramirez challenges the agency’s finding that he did not

        show that his removal would result in an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to

        his United States citizen daughters. We deny the petition for review.

               The Attorney General “‘may cancel removal’ of an applicant who meets four

        statutory criteria: 1) that the applicant has been physically present in the United States for

        at least ten continuous years, 2) that the applicant had been a person ‘of good moral

        character’ during that ten-year period, 3) that the applicant had not committed certain

        enumerated offenses, and 4) that the applicant ‘establishes that removal would result in

        exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the [applicant’s citizen or lawful permanent

        resident] spouse, parent, or child[ren].’” Gonzalez Galvan v. Garland, 6 F.4th 552, 557

        (4th Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (alterations in original)). “However, even

        if the applicant satisfies these four statutory requirements, the Attorney General still retains

        the discretion to deny an application for cancellation of removal.” Id. (footnote omitted).

               Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), we lack jurisdiction to review “any judgment

        regarding the granting of relief under . . . [§] 1229b,” except as provided in

        § 1252(a)(2)(D) (permitting review of constitutional claims or questions of law). Under

        § 1252(a)(2)(D), we have jurisdiction to review as a mixed question of fact and law the IJ’s

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2039      Doc: 28         Filed: 07/10/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        ruling on the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship requirement of § 1229b(b)(1).

        Gonzalez Galvan, 6 F.4th at 560. But our review is limited.

               [W]e may not review the IJ’s factual findings related to the hardship
               determination. Therefore, we accept as true the IJ’s settled factual findings.
               However, we review de novo the application of those facts to the statutory
               legal standard. Accordingly, we consider here only whether the IJ erred in
               holding that [the] evidence failed as a matter of law to satisfy the statutory
               standard of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.

        Id. at 561 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct.

        1614, 1627 (2022) (“Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of

        discretionary-relief proceedings under . . . the . . . provisions enumerated in

        § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).”). When the Board adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision, as in this case,

        we may review both decisions.          Ibarra Chevez v. Garland, 31 F.4th 279, 288

        (4th Cir. 2022).

               In making the hardship determination, the IJ should “consider the ages, health, and

        other circumstances of the United States citizen or lawful permanent resident family

        members in determining whether the applicant has established exceptional and extremely

        unusual hardship. To meet this evidentiary burden, the applicant must demonstrate that

        the hardship facing the family is substantially beyond the ordinary hardship that would be

        expected when a close family member is removed.” Id. (citation and internal quotation

        marks omitted). If the health of the qualifying relative is at issue, “an applicant needs to

        establish that the relative has a serious medical condition and, if he or she is accompanying

        the applicant to the country of removal, that adequate medical care for the claimed

        condition is not reasonably available in that country.” In re J-J-G-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 808,

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2039      Doc: 28           Filed: 07/10/2023    Pg: 4 of 4

        811 (B.I.A. 2020) (footnotes omitted). “Whether a qualifying relative suffers from a

        serious medical condition and whether adequate medical care for this condition is

        reasonably available in the country of removal are findings of fact that are made by an

        Immigration Judge and reviewed on appeal under a clearly erroneous standard.” Id.

               We conclude that the agency properly applied the factual findings to the legal

        standard. We note that the Board assumed that Ramirez’s daughters had serious medical

        conditions, but that Ramirez failed to show that adequate medical care would not be

        reasonably available in Mexico. Also, the IJ properly took into consideration Ramirez’s

        assets in determining that Ramirez did not show that he and his family will suffer financial

        hardship out of the ordinary and that adequate medical care and educational opportunities

        will be beyond the family’s reach.

               Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument

        because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

        court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                               PETITION DENIED

                                                      4