Case: 20-60222 Document: 00516157272 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2022
United States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
for the Fifth Circuit January 6, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
No. 20-60222
Javier Eduardo Salazar, also known as Javier Salazar,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A205 291 075
Before Jones, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Petitioner Javier Eduardo Salazar, proceeding pro se, seeks review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) determination that he is
ineligible for cancellation of removal and requests that this court vacate and
remand the case for further BIA proceedings. We find no error of law in the
BIA’s legal conclusions, and thus DENY the petition for review.
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-60222 Document: 00516157272 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2022
No. 20-60222
BACKGROUND
Salazar is a native and citizen of Mexico. He came to the United States
without a valid entry document with his parents when he was seven years old.
In 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (“D.H.S.”) served Salazar
with a notice to appear (“NTA”), charging him with removability. With
counsel, he appeared before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), admitted the
allegations in the NTA, and conceded removability. He then applied for
cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).1 D.H.S. stipulated
that Salazar satisfied the requirements of good moral character and physical
presence. But it contended that Salazar’s removal would not result in the
requisite “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his daughter, as
required for eligibility under § 1229b(b)(1)(D).
Salazar lives with his wife, daughter, and parents. His wife is also from
Mexico and does not have legal status, but she is not currently in removal
proceedings. Salazar’s parents also remain in the United States without legal
status. His daughter, who was born in 2018 in the United States, is a citizen.
Salazar works as a plumber and is the sole financial provider for his family.
His wife cares at home full-time for their daughter. Salazar has no personal
ties to Mexico other than his citizenship. He has not returned to Mexico
since entering the United States in 1999, he has no relatives in Mexico, and
his primary language is English.
Salazar testified that, if he were removed, he would take his wife and
daughter with him so that he could continue to support them and because he
does not believe in separating families. He believes that his daughter would
suffer in Mexico due to the increased criminal activity and lack of sufficient
1
Salazar also applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture. Those claims were unsuccessful, and Salazar did not appeal
any of these determinations.
2
Case: 20-60222 Document: 00516157272 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/06/2022
No. 20-60222
access to medical care. He testified that he does not anticipate she will
survive due to the “different lifestyle” Mexico offers as compared to the
United States. Although he expressed concern about the decreased access to
medical care in Mexico, he did not claim that his daughter suffers from any
specific medical issues.
The IJ denied Salazar’s request for cancellation of removal under
§ 1229b(b)(1), finding that his daughter would not suffer exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship if Salazar were removed to Mexico. Salazar
appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ’s findings. The BIA found that
any financial hardship would be mitigated by the fact that the child’s mother
and other relatives could care for her in the U.S., at least while Salazar
established himself in Mexico. The BIA also agreed with the IJ’s finding that
“respondent is young and able-bodied, with no indication that he could not
find work” in Mexico. Mexico’s poor economic conditions and increased
crime do not “establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” The
BIA also pointed out that, although Salazar fears for his daughter’s health,
the IJ “properly found no evidence of any unusual medical circumstances for
her.” Salazar timely petitioned for review from this court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court typically reviews the BIA’s final decision, but reviews
decisions of both the BIA and the IJ when the IJ’s findings play into the BIA
decision. Sealed Petitioner v. Sealed Respondent, 829 F.3d 379, 383 (5th Cir.
2016). Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo and factual findings are
reviewed for substantial evidence. Id. The burden is on Salazar to establish
his eligibility for cancellation of removal. Monteon-Camargo v. Barr, 918 F.3d
423, 428 (5th Cir. 2019), as revised (Apr. 26, 2019).
3
Case: 20-60222 Document: 00516157272 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/06/2022
No. 20-60222
DISCUSSION2
Salazar does not challenge the BIA’s fact finding.3 Rather, he
disagrees that the evidence he provided was not legally sufficient to establish
“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” He claims that “conditions
in Mexico are materially less stable and economically prosperous,
substantially more violent, and increasingly dangerous,” and thus his
daughter would suffer if she were forced to move to Mexico with him. But
the hardships that Salazar identifies are anything but “exceptional” or
“extremely unusual.” On the contrary, they are common to anyone being
removed to Mexico in the present day. We agree with the BIA’s findings and
legal conclusions, and thus hold that the BIA did not err in determining that
Salazar is ineligible for cancellation of removal.
To be eligible for cancellation of removal, “an alien must demonstrate
a ‘truly exceptional’ situation in which a qualifying relative would suffer
consequences ‘substantially beyond the ordinary hardship that would be
expected when a close family member leaves this country.’” Trejo v.
Garland, 3 F.4th 760, 775 (5th Cir. 2021). Increased crime and less stable
economic conditions await anyone who is removed to Mexico, and Salazar
does not identify any personal conditions that exacerbate these realities as
applied to his daughter. See Matter of Andazola, 23 I&N Dec. 319, 323 (BIA
2002) (“We do not dispute the fact that economic conditions in Mexico are
worse than those in this country. However, it has long been settled that
2
It is the law of this circuit that federal courts have jurisdiction to review hardship
determinations. Trejo v. Garland, 3 F.4th 760, 772–73 (5th Cir. 2021).
3
Salazar purports to argue that “the BIA erred as a matter of fact” by not heeding
to the evidence he submitted of the specific dangers in Mexico. But the BIA did not
disagree with Salazar’s characterization of the dangers in Mexico. It concluded instead that
such dangers were legally insufficient to constitute an “exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship.”
4
Case: 20-60222 Document: 00516157272 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/06/2022
No. 20-60222
economic detriment alone is insufficient to support even a finding of extreme
hardship.”). The court sympathizes with the inconvenience that removal
may cause Salazar’s family, but this measure of inconvenience does not
render him eligible for cancellation of removal.
Salazar suggests that his situation is similar to the hardship identified
in In Re Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 2002). On the contrary,
there is very little similarity between Salazar’s situation and that of the alien
in Recinas. In Recinas, the alien was a single mother to six children, was the
sole financial provider and caregiver, had scarce financial resources, and no
family to help her in Mexico. Id. at 469–70. Here, Salazar has a wife who
cares for their daughter full-time, and other family members in the United
States are available to care for his daughter while he transitions to Mexico.
We further agree with the BIA that Salazar is a young, able-bodied man who
is capable of providing for his daughter in Mexico just as well as anyone could.
He has not provided evidence of any particularized medical condition or
exceptional need to maintain access to the United States medical system.
While Salazar’s desire for what is best for his daughter is common to all good
fathers, his fears do not rise to the level of a “truly exceptional” hardship.
Trejo, 3 F.4th at 775. The BIA’s determination that Salazar is ineligible for
cancellation of removal was sound.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we DENY the petition for review.
5