USCA11 Case: 20-10923 Date Filed: 12/21/2020 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-10923 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A205-871-536 ANDRES ADAME-QUINTANA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (December 21, 2020) Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 20-10923 Date Filed: 12/21/2020 Page: 2 of 5 Andres Adame Quintana seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order affirming an immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). Mr. Adame-Quintana’s sole argument is that the IJ and the BIA misapplied precedent when finding that his U.S. citizen children would not suffer an “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” due to his removal and their resulting relocation to Mexico. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). Because Mr. Adame-Quintana did not exhaust his administrative remedies, see Jeune v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 800 (11th Cir. 2016), we lack jurisdiction to review his claim. Accordingly, we dismiss his petition for review. 1 I Mr. Adame-Quintana is a native and citizen of Mexico who has been living in the United States without status since the 1990s. In 2014, the Department of Homeland Security charged him with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). During his removal proceeding, Mr. Adame-Quintana conceded the charge of removability and subsequently filed an application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). The IJ denied Mr. Adame-Quintana’s application, finding that his removal would not result in “exceptional and extremely 1 As we write for the parties, we set out only what is necessary to address Mr. Adame-Quintana’s argument. 2 USCA11 Case: 20-10923 Date Filed: 12/21/2020 Page: 3 of 5 unusual hardship” on his children, who are U.S. citizens. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). Mr. Adame-Quintana subsequently appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA. In relevant part, he argued that the IJ had erred by failing to consider, when analyzing whether Mr. Adame-Quintana’s children would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship due to his removal, the impact of their relocation to Mexico. The BIA dismissed Mr. Adame-Quintana’s appeal after determining that the IJ had indeed considered the effects of relocation on his children. Mr. Adame-Quintana now seeks our review of that final decision by the BIA. II In his petition for review, Mr. Adame-Quintana asserts—for the first time— that in In Re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 65 (BIA 2001), the BIA held that the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard is met if the hardship resulting from removal is either exceptional or extremely unusual. According to Mr. Adame-Quintana, the IJ and the BIA (by affirming the IJ’s decision) erred in considering only the “exceptional” prong of the standard and failing to analyze the “extremely unusual” prong. We review de novo our subject-matter jurisdiction. See Jeune, 810 F.3d at 799. We lack jurisdiction to review a final order of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals