NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted December 17, 2014
Decided January 22, 2015
Before
ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
No. 14‐2565
JOSE ARRIAGA‐HERNANDEZ, Petition for Review of an Order of the
Petitioner, Board of Immigration Appeals.
v. No. A200‐838‐740
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
Attorney General of the United States,
Respondent.
O R D E R
Jose Arriaga‐Hernandez, a 35‐year‐old Mexican citizen, petitions for review of the
denial of his motion to reconsider the denial of his application for cancellation of
removal. We deny the petition.
Arriaga‐Hernandez applied for relief based on his family ties and length of residence
in the United States. He had entered the United States without inspection in 1997 and
married a U.S. citizen in 2001, and together they had three children. His wife’s petition
We granted the petitioner’s unopposed motion to waive oral argument. Thus, the
appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f).
No. 14‐2565 Page 2
for his immigrant‐spouse visa was approved in 2005, but at that time
Arriaga‐Hernandez did not want to leave his family and return to Mexico to retrieve his
visa. In 2010, after he was arrested for driving under the influence, the Department of
Homeland Security charged him with removability as an alien present in the United
States without being admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).
Arriaga‐Hernandez, acting pro se, conceded removability before an immigration judge
and applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
At his removal hearing, Arriaga‐Hernandez testified about his life in the United
States and the hardships his family would face if he were removed to Mexico. According
to Arriaga‐Hernandez, he has been the sole financial supporter of his wife and children,
and if he left the country they would probably relocate to live with his wife’s family in
Joliet, Illinois, amidst gang activity. Arriaga‐Hernandez also testified about his arrest
record, admitting that he had been arrested for a minor traffic offense almost every year
from 1997 to 2011 and once for domestic battery in 2002.
The immigration judge deemed Arriaga‐Hernandez ineligible for cancellation of
removal. The judge found that Arriaga‐Hernandez likely met the requirement of being
physically present in the United States for a continuous period of ten years, but he
could not show ten years of good moral character, as required under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1)(A) and (B). The judge determined that Arriaga‐Hernandez was statutorily
barred from showing good moral character because he had been imprisoned for six
months for his DUI conviction. See id., § 1101(f)(7) (finding of good moral character is
barred if alien was confined for 180 days or more during the ten‐year period). In any
event, the judge continued, Arriaga‐Hernandez was unable to demonstrate good moral
character because his numerous traffic offenses revealed a “complete disregard for the
laws of the United States.” Nor did Arriaga‐Hernandez establish, the judge added, that
the potential economic hardship to his wife and children—who would remain in the
United States upon his removal—qualified as “exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship.” See id., § 1229b(b)(1)(D). Finally, the judge observed that
Arriaga‐Hernandez’s approved visa petition provided him an alternative means to
acquire lawful status in the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the
judge’s ruling.
Arriaga‐Hernandez then filed a motion to reconsider in which he argued that his
six‐month incarceration did not bar a finding of good moral character and that he had
shown exceptional and extremely unusual hardship by testifying about the anticipated
economic difficulties and gang violence that his family would face if he were removed.
No. 14‐2565 Page 3
The BIA denied the motion, finding no error of fact or law in its previous decision. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
In his petition for review, Arriaga‐Hernandez challenges only the judge’s earlier
conclusion that his six‐month incarceration barred a finding of good moral character.
But our review is limited to the denial of Arriaga‐Hernandez’s motion to reconsider
because he did not file a timely petition for review of the underlying denial of his
application for cancellation of removal, see El‐Gazawy v. Holder, 690 F.3d 852, 857 (7th
Cir. 2012); Muratoski v. Holder, 622 F.3d 824, 829–30 (7th Cir. 2010), and he does not
challenge the denial of that motion. Even if we could review the immigration judge’s
denial of cancellation, Arriaga‐Hernandez fails to contest the judge’s alternative and
independent grounds for denying relief: the significance of his frequent traffic offenses
for the moral‐character inquiry and his failure to show exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship to his family upon his removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1);
Marin‐Garcia v. Holder, 647 F.3d 666, 669 (7th Cir. 2011). Even if we found an error
regarding his incarceration, those other, unchallenged findings would bar relief.
Accordingly, we DENY the petition for review.