USCA11 Case: 21-11584 Date Filed: 03/30/2022 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-11584 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ EULALIO CASTANON PEREZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A070-799-437 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-11584 Date Filed: 03/30/2022 Page: 2 of 10 2 Opinion of the Court 21-11584 Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Petitioner Eulalio Castanon Perez, a citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) (collectively, “Agency”) denial of special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”) § 203, Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2160 (1997), as amended by Pub. L. No. 105-139, 111 Stat. 2644 (1997). 1 He argues that the Agency failed to apply the proper legal standard in con- cluding that he was subject to the persecutor bar in the Immigra- tion and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 241(b)(3)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(i). He also asserts that the BIA engaged in de novo factfinding and did not give reasoned consideration to his arguments. Having read the parties’ briefs and reviewed the rec- ord, we dismiss the petition in part and deny the petition in part. I. “We review only the BIA’s decision except to the extent the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s opinion or reasoning.” Seck v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 663 F.3d 1356, 1364 (11th Cir. 2011). When the BIA issues its own opinion and relies on the IJ’s reasoning without 1 Castanon Perez also sought asylum and related relief during his removal pro- ceedings, but he has expressly waived any appellate challenge to the denial of non-NACARA relief. USCA11 Case: 21-11584 Date Filed: 03/30/2022 Page: 3 of 10 21-11584 Opinion of the Court 3 expressly adopting the IJ’s opinion, we review the IJ’s decision “to the extent that the BIA found that the IJ’s reasons were supported by the record,” and we review the BIA’s opinion “with regard to those matters on which it rendered its own opinion and reasoning.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Generally, we lack jurisdiction over any decision regarding discretionary forms of relief, such as special rule cancellation of re- moval under NACARA. INA § 242(a)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); NACARA § 203(b) (stating that INA § 242(a)(2)(B) applies to NACARA). However, we retain jurisdiction over “con- stitutional claims or questions of law.” INA § 242(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). While we lack jurisdiction over “factual challenges to denials of” discretionary relief, we retain jurisdiction over “con- stitutional and legal challenges to the denial of that relief, including review of mixed questions of law and fact.” Patel v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 971 F.3d 1258, 1275-76 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc), cert. granted, Patel v. Garland, ___ U.S. ___, 141 S. Ct. 2850 (2021). Further, we retain jurisdiction over “the application of a legal …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals