Tzul Lacan v. Garland, No. 20-61229 (5th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-61229 Document: 00516317494 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 12, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk No. 20-61229 Summary Calendar Juan Gabriel Tzul Lacan, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A072 425 517 Before Barksdale, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Juan Gabriel Tzul Lacan, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for cancellation of removal, contending he * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-61229 Document: 00516317494 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2022 No. 20-61229 demonstrated his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his children. In reviewing the BIA’s decision, the immigration judge’s decision is considered 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; legal conclusions, de novo. Trejo v. Garland, 3 F.4th 760, 774 (5th Cir. 2021). Cancellation of removal is available if, inter alia, applicant establishes applicant’s spouse, child, or parent would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if applicant were removed. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Despite Lacan’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”. Trejo, 3 F.4th at 775 (quoting In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 62 (B.I.A. 2001)). Because the record does not compel a finding that his children would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he were removed, substantial evidence supports the determination that he is ineligible for cancellation of removal. 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.
