Martin Espinoza Leyva v. Merrick Garland, No. 21-1901 (4th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-1901 MARTIN ESPINOZA LEYVA, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: May 24, 2022 Decided: May 26, 2022 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Buxton Reed Bailey, BUXTON R. BAILEY, P.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Bryan Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Lindsay Marshall, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Martin Espinoza Leyva (Espinoza), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of Espinoza’s application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). In denying cancellation of removal, the immigration judge found, in relevant part, that Espinoza failed to show that his removal would cause an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for his two U.S.-citizen daughters. We review this determination as a mixed question of fact and law. Gonzalez Galvan v. Garland, 6 F.4th 552, 559-60 (4th Cir. 2021). We have reviewed the administrative record in conjunction with the arguments advanced by Espinoza and conclude there is no error in the agency’s dispositive hardship determination. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal questions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
