Lopez v. Holder

633 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2011)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is a native and citizen of Mexico. She entered the United States without inspection in 1994 at the age of 14. In 2002, D served her with a notice to appear. She conceded removability but applied for special-rule cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A). Under that statute P had to demonstrate (1) the existence of battery or extreme cruelty, (2) physical presence, (3) good moral character, (4) not being inadmissible for certain specified reasons, and (5) extreme hardship. After arriving in the United States, and still at the age of 14, P began a sexual relationship with Gill Campos, who was then 36 years old. Campos is a legal permanent resident of the United States. At age 16, P gave birth to E-. At age 18, she gave birth to G-. P and Campos lived together while the children were very young. Campos repeatedly threatened P, insulted her, prohibited her from talking with others, acted aggressively toward her, and threatened to alert immigration officials if P disobeyed his orders. P was violent toward his children, yelled at them, and often took them for rides in his car when he was drunk. Campos struck E-, then 3 years old, three times on the legs with a stick that was 24 inches long and one-half inch in diameter. The strikes caused red welts to appear on E-'s legs. That same form of beating occurred two to three times a week. Campos subjected G- to the same mistreatment. Twice, P left Campos but, both times, she returned after Campos convinced her that he had changed. P left for good in 1999. The children have visited Campos for one or two months at a time, and once for almost a year. Campos no longer strikes the children. Both children testified their father no longer beats them and as of the hearing they loved him. The judge denied cancellation of removal. The judge held that P failed to establish that the children had been 'battered' or subjected to 'extreme cruelty' under the statute. He did not reach any of the other statutory requirements for relief. The BIA affirmed. P appealed.