Case: 21-60316 Document: 00516301952 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 2, 2022
No. 21-60316
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Martin Escobedo Andrade,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A201 068 278
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Martin Escobedo Andrade, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming
the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for cancellation of
removal. Escobedo Andrade contends that the IJ erred in finding that he
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60316 Document: 00516301952 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2022
No. 21-60316
failed to demonstrate that his removal would cause exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship to his children and that he lacked good moral
character.
We review the BIA’s decision and consider the IJ’s decision only to
the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th
Cir. 2018). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence and legal
determinations are reviewed de novo. Guerrero Trejo v. Garland, 3 F.4th 760,
774 (5th Cir. 2021). Cancellation of removal is available to applicants who
have been continuously present in the United States for 10 or more years
prior to filing an application, who can establish good moral character during
that time, who have no disqualifying convictions, and whose spouse,
children, or parent would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship
if the applicant were removed. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
Despite Escobedo Andrade’s assertions to the contrary, the
consequences facing his children if he were removed are not “‘substantially’
beyond the ordinary hardship that would be expected when a close family
member leaves this country.” Guerrero Trejo, 3 F.4th at 775 (quoting In Re
Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 62 (BIA 2001)). While he claims that
the IJ misconstrued the evidence in determining that his wife could find
work; his sister could provide support to his children; and that his oldest son
does not have a significant medical condition, these findings are supported
by substantial evidence. See Guerrero Trejo, 3 F.4th at 774. Because
resolution of this issue is dispositive as to his lack of eligibility for cancellation
of removal, see § 1229b(b)(1), we need not consider his argument regarding
whether the IJ erred in determining that he failed to establish that he was in
possession of good moral character. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25
(1976).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
2