Higinio Badillo-Perez v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-2343
HIGINIO BADILLO-PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: February 28, 2022 Decided: April 12, 2022
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Steven C. Planzer, CASTANEDA PLANZER LLC, Salisbury, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Paul Fiorino, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Andrew Oliveira, Trial Attorney, Civil Division, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Higinio Badillo-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of Badillo-Perez’s application for cancellation of removal
under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). In denying cancellation of removal, the IJ found, in relevant
part, that Badillo-Perez failed to show that his removal would result in exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship to his minor daughter, who is a United States citizen. See 8
U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). This determination is reviewable as a mixed question of law and
fact. Gonzalez Galvan v. Garland, 6 F.4th 552, 559-60 (4th Cir. 2021). Upon review of
the administrative record and the arguments advanced by Badillo-Perez, we discern no
error in the agency’s dispositive hardship determination.
In addition, we reject Badillo-Perez’s due process challenge based on the IJ’s
alleged failure to comply with 8 C.F.R. § 1240.1(b) (2021). As relevant here, the IJ who
presided over the merits hearing and ruled on Badillo-Perez’s cancellation motion was the
third IJ to handle Badillo-Perez’s case. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.1(b), when an IJ is newly
assigned to an ongoing matter, the IJ “shall state for the record that he or she has”
“familiarize[d] himself or herself with the record in the case.” Even assuming that the IJ
ran afoul of this regulation, Badillo-Perez fails to establish prejudice. See Rusu v. U.S.
I.N.S., 296 F.3d 316, 320 (4th Cir. 2002) (“In order to prevail on a due process challenge
to a deportation or asylum hearing, an alien must demonstrate that he was prejudiced by
any such violation.”).
2
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3