*1 result, objections testimony. to such As a
we that Threadgill pre- conclude failed to his claim of error on appeal.
serve Conse-
quently, Threadgill’s challenge Bjorkman’s testimony direct plain for (if Carney,
error. See
defendant objection to mount an trial, precluded
to evidence at ishe from
arguing on appeal its admission
flawed unless its allowance constituted error.”).
plain burden of establishing entitle- to relief plain error
defendant claiming it.” United States v. Benitez,
Dominguez 74, 82, 542 U.S. (2004).
S.Ct. L.Ed.2d
Threadgill makes no Bjorkman’s
admission of two statements
challenged here plain constituted error.
Therefore, he has not satisfied his burden
to establish his entitlement challenge is without merit.
III. Conclusion above,
For the reasons set out we AF- judgment
FIRM the district court. FLORES-CEDRA, Petitioner, JR., HOLDER,
Eric H.
General, Respondent.
United States of Appeals, Court *2 cases, and that Flores-
States in most children that his had not shown Cedra On violent crime. victims of likely be would BIA, also Flores-Cedra to to the IJ the case to remand moved by issued warning a new travel consider Security af- of Homeland Department the previous the IJ’s decision. Unlike ter the GUY, record, and BEFORE: warning already travel GRIFFIN, Judges. crime violent warning new mentioned Zacatecas, where Flores-Ce- the state of
PER CURIAM. specifically family lived. It referred dra’s cities, city not the where citizen, but to several Flores-Cedra, Mexican a lived, and to the Flores-Cedra’s of an for review through counsel petitions Zacatecas, while Flores- northwest Appeals Immigration of of the Board order part. in the southeast family lived (BIA) a appeal from deci- dismissing his IJ’s decision and (IJ) agreed The BIA denying immigration judge of an sion to response In appeal. dismissed of for cancellation removal application his noted that 1229b(b)(l). the decision move to a less could also born Flores-Cedra was to The motion part of Mexico. dangerous country in He last entered denied, with the was also remand more removed on having after been information would concluding that the new occasion, since and has remained one than the result. change bricklayer, as a time. He that worked court, Flores- before this In his brief children, four and five supporting his wife the BIA erred dis- argues that Cedra Upon citizens. are whom ability to Mexi- his cussing proceedings, being placed removal co, a factor is rele- contending that such relief, avail- which is for the above applied asylum seeking in cases only vant present been who have applicants able He also chal- of removal. not cancellation have been of years, for ten in this of his motion the BIA’s denial lenges character, disqualify- have no moral good that argues The remand. convictions, rela- qualifying whose ing and be dismissed for petition for review should children, tives, case, the four citizen in this lack of extremely un- exceptional would suffer re- applicant if were
usual We lack moved. cancella discretionary that Flores-Cedra, tion of removal hearing at which After extremely testified, extraordinary and un the IJ requisite son brother and his established, hardship has not been usual dem- that concluded only to address and retain citizen children onstrated analy not involve of law that do extremely questions unusu- extraordinary and suffer eligibility. factors for Ettienne him to sis of the they accompanied hardship if al 513, 517-18 Cir. the lower stan- The IJ found Mexico. 2011). only arguable issue law oppor- educational living and fewer dard argu is Flores-Cedra’s raised in this case conse- in Mexico were unusual tunities consider wheth- BIA cannot the United outside relocation quences er could relocate within as that Mexico are plagued violence, with drug only issue is applications relevant to there was no evidence that violence had asylum. supported This is not reached where by the case law. See Ramirez-Garay v. he likely to relocate. Flores-Cedra *3 Holder, 816, (7th 490 Fed.Appx. 818-19 appealed the immigration judge’s decision Cir.2012) (discussing petitioner whether to the BIA and presented evidence that part to another of Mexico to the conditions in including in his in danger avoid cancellation of removal hometown, were worse than the immigra- case); v. Atty. Moran-Hernandez Gen. of recognized. The BIA “ac- U.S., (3d Cir.2008) 726, 294 Fed.Appx. 728 knowledge[d] the documentary evidence (BIA availability considered of relocation the respondent has submitted regarding case). in a cancellation of removal country Mexico,” conditions in BIA decided that although “note[d] the respondent as- similar cases without consideration of the serts that he will part return to a of Mexi- ability reviewable, to relocate is not as the co where crime is currently widespread, he BIA may come to a different in result option has the to relocate with factually similar in cases the exercise of its in area Mexico.” Ettienne, discretion. F.3d at 518. 659 Flores-Cedra argues that the BIA en- jurisdiction We also lack to review gaged in improper fact-finding it when of a reopen denial motion to or remand concluded that he and his family could in case, a cancellation of removal unless relocate to another of Mexico to avoid the motion raised a hardship ground the drug violence that allegedly plagues not in the original decided decision. Cruz- 1003.1(d)(3)(iv) § hometown. 8 C.F.R. Holder, Mayaho 574, v. 698 F.3d 576-77 provides that the may engage in (7th Cir.2012); Gonzales, 439 Fernandez independent fact-finding the course of 592, (9th Cir.2006). F.3d 601-03 More deciding an appeal. The BIA is entitled to over, existed, even if jurisdiction the BIA review an immigration judge’s factual find- did not abuse its in denying discretion error, ings § for clear 1003.1(d)(3)(i), id. motion on the the result but if the case be resolved without changed by be the new fact, additional findings of the BIA should because the evidence supporting motion remand the case reopen or remand must be material. issue, for resolution of the factual id. Gonzales, 668, See Allabani v. § (6th Cir.2005). 675-76 Accordingly, we petition dismiss The United contends that for lack jurisdiction. jurisdiction court lacks the BIA engaged in improper SMITH JULIA 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) fact-finding. § 8 U.S.C. Judge, dissenting. strips the courts of to review opinion of majority fails to focus any discretionary relief key issue this case—an issue But 1229b. Flores-Ce- my which view is determinative and dra does the BIA’s discre- requires remand. I respectfully therefore decision; tionary challenges the BIA’s dissent. alleged engagement in improper fact- A part judge’s ruling finding, question which is a of law over that, was its conclusion although parts of may which this court properly exercise 392 factual analysis requires Holder, nal relocation Rodriguez v. See conditions, the rea Cir.2012) findings regarding 1164, F.3d 1170
683 relocation, its own sonableness (“Where to follow BIA fails Moncaleano, removal.”); see also Gracia it findings, factual and makes regulations the BIA (finding that at 87 Fed.Appx. law, have 390 an error commits when it fact-finding improper correct.”); engaged Saleheen be able longer no (8th Cir.2010); Gracia would “found F.3d released, when for his mother to care v. U.S. Moncaleano Gracia Cir.2010). or a partner a house longer no has as he Gen., Fed.Appx. he is daytime when during the care for her permit remanded to be This case should *4 omitted)). (alteration ques working” immigration care for availability tion rea- instance whether first relocate he were children if Cedra’s sonably could relocate one, a factual inherently Mexico is violence, or instead drug to avoid Mexico immigra only for resolution is and its an give rise to relocation would BIA. See rather than the chil- on Flores-Cedra’s hardship extreme C.F.R. judge concluded immigration dren. The had not reached drug violence ev- determination. not credit that idently did
Rather, presence that the BIA found home- in Flores-Cedra’s drug violence because Flores-Ce- immaterial
town was pack up simply could his children
dra and Mexico. But another
and move to co-exist with
that conclusion hardship determina- judge’s
immigration tion, fact that Flores- turned on ENGEBRECHT, Plaintiff- Karen in his hometown. family remained Appellant, there and is family in provide place there to support,” family go and his OF SOCIAL COMMISSIONER it is Accordingly,
immigration judge said. SECURITY, Defendant- and his not clear Appellee. fac- within Mexico without long- hardship, as he would no ing extreme system which support er have the Appeals, States Court ground- judge’s decision ed. for the BIA
The correct course
have been to remand feasi judge to determine the the effect of reloca
bility of relocation and immigration judge’s
tion on the Fed. Alaka
analysis. Cf. Cir.2011) (“[A]n inter- Appx.