Case: 22-60531 Document: 00516739987 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED May 5, 2023 No. 22-60531 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________ Jesus Duarte, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. ______________________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A089 937 396 ______________________________ Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Jesus Duarte, 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 cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-60531 Document: 00516739987 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2023 No. 22-60531 This court reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the IJ’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and its rulings of law are reviewed de novo. Id. The substantial evidence test “requires only that the BIA’s decision be supported by record evidence and be substantially reasonable.” Omagah v. Ashcroft, 288 F.3d 254, 258 (5th Cir. 2002). This court will not reverse the BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Chen v. Gonzalez, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). “The applicant has the burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Id. Duarte 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 United States citizen son would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship upon his removal to Mexico. The hardship determination “is a discretionary and authoritative decision” which “is beyond [this court’s] review” under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Castillo-Gutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 481 (5th Cir. 2022) (per curiam). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider Duarte’s challenge to the BIA’s hardship determination.1 Id.; see Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1622 (2022). Duarte argues that the BIA abused its discretion in finding that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). He challenges the BIA’s factual finding that his proposed social group of “imputed American citizen” was not cognizable. This court has repeatedly _____________________ 1 Duarte also argues that the IJ violated his right to due process by failing to consider and weigh all of the evidence in determining that he lacked the requisite good moral character for cancellation of removal. The BIA did not, however, address or adopt the IJ’s findings regarding good moral character. As such, this court need not consider Duarte’s arguments related to that factor. See Rui Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 584 n.3 (5th Cir. 2011). 2 Case: 22-60531 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals