novo and findings of fact for substantial evidence. See Razkane v. Holder, 562 F.3d 1283, 1287 (10th Cir.2009). “[W]e review jurisdictional questions de novo.” Itaeva v. INS, 314 F.3d 1238, 1240 (10th Cir.2003). II. To be eligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l), Ms. Castillo-Torres had the burden to show that (1) she had been present in the United States for ten years; (2) her moral character had been good for ten years; (3) she had not been convicted of certain crimes, including crimes involving moral turpitude; and (4) her removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4) (placing burden of proof on alien to establish eligibility); Garcia v. Holder, 584 F.3d 1288, 1289-90 (10th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Only the third prong is at issue in this
holding that the phrase resident alien means an alien lawfully residing in the united states recognizing burden is on alien when alien is removable holding that alien demonstrated deportation proceedings were fundamentally unfair when alien was deprived effective assistance of counsel holding that the jurisdictional bar applies as long as an alien is removable regardless of whether the predicate offense was the reason for removal holding that notice to an alien at the most recent address provided by the alien is legally sufficient