Tigre-Hurtado v. Attorney General of United States, 081314 FED3, 14-1437
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||JOSE TIGRE-HURTADO, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES|
|Judge Panel:||Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges|
|Case Date:||August 13, 2014|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) August 6, 2014
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A200-687-190) Immigration Judge: Honorable Rosalind K. Malloy
Jose Tigre-Hurtado1 petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") final order of removal. We will deny the petition.
Tigre is a citizen of Ecuador who concedes that he is removable for having entered the United States without inspection or parole. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). He applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). That application required him to show, inter alia, that his removal "would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to a qualifying relative. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). Tigre's only qualifying relative is his United States citizen daughter, and he based his application on her.
Tigre testified before the Immigration Judge ("IJ") that his daughter's grades and emotional state would suffer if he were removed and she remained in the United States, that she would lose educational opportunities if she accompanied him to Ecuador (Tigre's daughter's mother, who is Tigre's wife, also has been ordered removed to Ecuador), and that he would lose certain economic opportunities if removed to Ecuador and would not be able to support his daughter as well as he would like. The IJ concluded that these hardships, though regrettable, are common incidents of removal and do not constitute the "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" necessary to qualify for relief. The BIA, applying the standard set forth in In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56 (BIA 2001), agreed and dismissed Tigre's appeal. Tigre petitions for review.
As Tigre recognizes, we lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal, including the Agency's determination that a petitioner did not show sufficient hardship. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Patel v. Att'y Gen., 619 F.3d 230, 232 (3d Cir. 2010). We retain jurisdiction in this context only to review colorable constitutional claims or questions of law. See...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP