Case: 21-60959 Document: 00516543449 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/14/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 21-60959 FILED Summary Calendar November 14, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce J. Reyes Luna Esparza, Clerk Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A212 953 379 Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* J. Reyes Luna Esparza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-60959 Document: 00516543449 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/14/2022 No. 21-60959 Luna Esparza argues that the BIA erred in denying his application for cancellation of removal based on the finding that he had failed to show that his son would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship upon petitioner’s removal to Mexico. He further argues that the hardship standard is unconscionable and violates his constitutional right to due process. This court lacks jurisdiction to consider Luna Esparza’s challenge to the BIA’s hardship determination. See Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1622 (2022); Castillo-Gutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 481 (5th Cir. 2022); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). We likewise lack jurisdiction to review Luna Esparza’s related argument that the BIA failed to consider certain relevant factors in its hardship determination. See Sung v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir. 2007). Luna Esparza also raises a constitutional challenge to the hardship standard. He argues that the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” requirement is an “unconscionable standard” as applied by the BIA because only applicants who can show that their qualifying relatives suffer from “serious physical medical conditions” will be eligible for cancellation of removal. Luna Esparza contends that the standard’s high burden violates the due-process rights of noncitizens. This court still has jurisdiction to consider constitutional challenges to the denial of cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see also Patel, 142 S. Ct. at 1623. Nonetheless, “the failure to receive relief that is purely discretionary in nature does not amount to a deprivation of a liberty interest.” Assaad v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 471, 475 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). And cancellation of removal is a form of discretionary relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The petition for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. 2 21-60959 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ca5 5th Cir. Luna Esparza v. Garland 14 November 2022 Immigration Unpublished 96093b59a2f72e170ec509ca86e20a044d1b60e7
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals