Court Opinion

ID: 9384761
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-04 21:01:07.981345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:56.086765
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1604      Doc: 24         Filed: 04/03/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1604

        RICARDO ACOSTA GASPAR,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: February 28, 2023                                      Decided: April 3, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Zoila Catalina Velasquez, LAW OFFICE OF ZOILA C. VELASQUEZ,
        Charlotte, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant
        Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Timothy G. Hayes, Senior
        Litigation Counsel, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-1604      Doc: 24          Filed: 04/03/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Ricardo Acosta Gaspar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an

        order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) adopting and affirming the

        Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying Gaspar’s application for cancellation of removal

        under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The IJ concluded that Gaspar’s application failed because

        he did not establish that his removal to Mexico would result in exceptional and extremely

        unusual hardship to his United States citizen children. 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) (alterations in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)). In Gonzalez

        Galvan, we held that the IJ’s ruling that an applicant has not met the exceptional and

        extremely unusual hardship requirement of § 1229b(b)(1) is a mixed question of law and

        fact that we possess jurisdiction to review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Id. at 560. But

        in performing that review, we may not disturb “the IJ’s factual findings related to the

        hardship determination,” and we assess only whether “the IJ erred in holding that [the]

        evidence failed as a matter of law to satisfy the statutory standard of exceptional and

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1604      Doc: 24          Filed: 04/03/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        extremely unusual hardship.” Id. at 561 (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review

        of that legal question is de novo. Id.

               After reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the IJ “applied the correct statutory

        standard, considered all the evidence, and adequately explained the reasons for his ruling.”

        Id. We therefore conclude that the IJ did not commit an error of law in denying Gaspar’s

        application for cancellation of removal. 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

                                                      3