Simental-Galarza v. Barr, No. 19-2126 (7th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Seventh Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Seventh Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Simental-Galarza unlawfully entered the U.S. in 2001. He married a U.S. citizen in 2013; they divorced three years later. Simental-Galarza was charged as removable under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), for having entered and remained without lawful admission. Simental-Galarza sought cancellation of removal as a battered spouse under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(2), alleging that his removal would result in extreme hardship. He offered evidence of physical, verbal, and psychological abuse and that the abuse left him depressed. His sister-in-law confirmed that since the divorce, Simental-Galarza rarely talked, never laughed, and did not trust people. A licensed clinical social worker diagnosed him with anxiety, severe depression, PTSD, and dependent personality disorder and advised that he continue therapy in a stable, supportive environment. His parents are deceased and five siblings live here. He has steady work. His sister-in-law predicted that if Simental-Galarza were removed, he would “shut down” and that Mexico did not have the mental health resources that are available here. The IJ rejected his claim. The BIA dismissed Simental-Galarza’s appeal, finding that he had not shown that he could not obtain work in Mexico and that, although Mexico can be violent, Simental-Galarza had not shown that he would personally face violence or “that he could not obtain treatment for his anxiety and depression.” The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review. The IJ and BIA adequately evaluated the relevant factors and evidence.
Download PDF
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-2126 JOSE ANTONIO SIMENTAL-GALARZA, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals No. A206-274-723 ____________________ ARGUED DECEMBER 17, 2019 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2020 ____________________ Before RIPPLE, SYKES, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Jose Antonio Simental-Galarza, a 36-year-old citizen of Mexico, seeks relief from removal, contending that he is a battered spouse and would su er extreme hardship if removed. The Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled that Simental-Galarza did not qualify for relief because he did not establish hardship. Because the IJ and Board adequately evaluated the relevant factors and the 2 No. 19-2126 evidence that Simental-Galarza presented, we deny the petition for review. Background Simental-Galarza unlawfully entered the United States from Durango, Mexico, in 2001. He married Jolene Avitia, a United States citizen, in 2013; they divorced three years later. Around the time of the divorce, Simental-Galarza came to the attention of immigration authorities. He was charged as removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), for having entered and remained in the United States without lawful admission. Simental-Galarza conceded to the charge but sought cancellation of removal as a battered spouse under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2). Under § 1229b, the Attorney General may cancel Simental-Galarza’s removal if he demonstrates that he was battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by his spouse and that his removal would result in extreme hardship. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i)(I), (b)(2)(A)(v). (In the alternative, Simental-Galarza asked for voluntary departure.) At his immigration hearing, Simental-Galarza o ered evidence of physical, verbal, and psychological abuse. During three unhappy years of marriage with Avitia, he explained, she attacked him, slapping him more than 20 times. At other times, she insulted him, yelled at him, and called him obscene names. She also often threatened to call the authorities to “come after” him. Finally, she was unfaithful and stole money from him. Because of the toll that this abuse took on SimentalGalarza and his long ties to the United States, he argued to the IJ that removal would cause him extreme hardship. He testified that the abuse left him depressed and unable to start No. 19-2126 3 another romantic relationship. His sister-in-law confirmed that since the divorce, Simental-Galarza rarely talked, never laughed, and did not trust people. A licensed clinical social worker diagnosed him with anxiety, severe depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and dependent personality disorder. Therefore, the social worker advised, he should continue therapy in a stable, supportive environment. SimentalGalarza thought that the United States was the best environment for him: Most of his family resides here—his parents are deceased, and three brothers and two sisters live here. Also, in the 17 years that he has lived here, he has had steady work (as a landscaper, at his brother’s restaurant, and removing snow in the winter). By contrast, “it’s very hard” in Mexico, where wages are low, violence is high, and it is di cult to find employment without a strong family network. His sister-inlaw predicted that if Simental-Galarza were removed, he would “shut down” physically and emotionally because all his close family members reside in the United States. She also speculated that Mexico did not have the mental health resources that are available here, but no witness o ered evidence that Simental-Galarza could not receive mental health treatment in Mexico. Simental-Galarza did not receive cancellation of removal. The IJ concluded that he had failed to establish that he is a battered spouse or that his return to Mexico would cause extreme hardship, as required under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2). Although Simental-Galarza would lose family ties and employment in the United States, the IJ reasoned, that loss is a consequence of most removals, and no medical condition disabled him from finding employment in Mexico. (The IJ then granted Simental-Galarza’s alternative request for voluntary departure.) The Board dismissed Simental-Galarza’s appeal. It 4 No. 19-2126 assumed that he was a battered spouse but a rmed that he had not shown hardship beyond that which is typical from removal. The Board first ruled that Simental-Galarza had not demonstrated that he could not obtain work in Mexico. And although Mexico can be violent, the Board acknowledged, Simental-Galarza had not shown that he would personally face violence. Finally, the Board supplemented the IJ’s rationale by observing that Simental-Galarza had “not shown that he could not obtain treatment for his anxiety and depression in Mexico.” Analysis When, as here, the Board dismisses an appeal from an IJ’s decision and supplements that decision with its own reasoning, we review both decisions together. See Pouhova v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1007, 1011 (7th Cir. 2013). Because the Board assumed that Simental-Galarza was a battered spouse under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2), the parties dispute whether the Board wrongly decided the question of extreme hardship. Simental-Galarza mainly contends that the IJ and Board did not explicitly mention his post-traumatic stress disorder, dependent personality disorder, and lack of treatment options in Mexico. He argues that the agency’s failure to address this material evidence constituted a legal error and that we should remand for the agency to consider his mental health evidence anew. Before turning to the merits, however, we must first address our ability to consider Simental-Galarza’s petition. We generally do not have jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions from immigration proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). But under § 1252(a)(2)(D), we retain No. 19-2126 5 jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law. Simental-Galarza contends that he has raised a legal question—whether, in deciding the matter of extreme hardship, the IJ and Board failed to consider his evidence about a lack of treatment options in Mexico. The government maintains that his petition merely questions the agency’s discretionary decision to deny cancellation of removal, which is unreviewable. Simental-Galarza is correct about jurisdiction. He does not quarrel with how the agency weighed the evidence that it actually considered; we would not have jurisdiction to review such a dispute. See Cruz-Moyaho v. Holder, 703 F.3d 991, 997 (7th Cir. 2012). Rather, he contends that the agency ignored material evidence. That contention generally raises a legal question that this court can review. See, e.g., Arej v. Sessions, 852 F.3d 665, 667 (7th Cir. 2017); Silais v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 736, 743 (7th Cir. 2017); Iglesias v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 528, 531 (7th Cir. 2008). We therefore have jurisdiction to address his argument that the IJ and Board ignored relevant evidence. Four categories of evidence are relevant to whether an alien has met the extreme-hardship standard: (1) the alien’s familial ties in the United States; (2) the significant conditions of the alien’s health and the availability of medical care in the country of relocation; (3) the conditions of, and the alien’s ties to, the country of relocation; and (4) the financial impact of departure from the United States. See Matter of Cervantes-Gonzalez, 22 I & N Dec. 560, 565–66 (BIA 1999); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1240.58(b), (c). The IJ and Board “are not required to o er an independent analysis of each listed factor.” 8 C.F.R. § 1240.58(a). The IJ and Board discussed all four factors. 6 No. 19-2126 To begin with, the IJ and Board considered the evidence that Simental-Galarza presented about the first and fourth factors—his family ties in the United States and the financial impact of removal. In terms of family ties, the IJ acknowledged Simental-Galarza’s employment and family connections in the United States but concluded that severing these ties is no di erent from what happens in a typical removal case. The IJ also considered whether Simental-Galarza, who had worked here for over a decade as a landscaper and in a restaurant, was physically or mentally unable to work in Mexico. Despite Simental-Galarza’s worries that wages in Mexico are low and jobs are not as abundant as in the United States, the IJ did not believe that Simental-Galarza was disabled from finding gainful work in Mexico. Thus, in terms of financial impact and lost familial ties, the IJ concluded that the hardship that Simental-Galarza would face was not extreme. Simental-Galarza principally focuses on the other two factors—his poor mental health and need for family support in the United States to help treat him, and the violence in his native state of Durango. His argument, however, is unpersuasive. True, the IJ did not explicitly analyze Simental-Galarza’s mental health, but the IJ did state in its decision that it considered Simental-Galarza’s documentary evidence, which included his psychological assessment. Furthermore, the Board did address Simental-Galarza’s mental health. It acknowledged Simental-Galarza’s mental ailments and ruled that, despite concerns that the United States was a better place for him to heal, he had not shown that he could not obtain e ective treatment for his mental health conditions in Mexico. The Board also acknowledged that Mexico can be violent, but correctly noted that Simental-Galarza had not provided evidence that he personally was at risk of it. No. 19-2126 7 This discussion of the four factors was legally adequate. The Board and IJ considered the evidence that SimentalGalarza presented and decided that it did not establish extreme hardship under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(v). See PerezFuentes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 506, 512 (7th Cir. 2016) (“[T]he IJ is not required to mention each piece of evidence in its decision; the IJ need only consider the evidence.”). Although the agency’s discussion was brief, it su ced to show that the agency considered his arguments. See Cruz-Moyaho, 703 F.3d at 998. To the extent that Simental-Galarza disagrees with the assessment of his argument that the United States is a better place for him, as stated earlier, that contention is beyond this court’s jurisdiction. See Jawad v. Holder, 686 F.3d 400, 404 (7th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, Simental-Galarza’s petition for review is DENIED.
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.
