Case: 19-13213 Date Filed: 04/28/2020 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-13213 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A087-088-626 ALEXANDER APRAEZ-VELASCO, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (April 28, 2020) Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 19-13213 Date Filed: 04/28/2020 Page: 2 of 6 Alexander Apraez-Velasco seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing an appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. Apraez argues that the IJ violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights when she deprived him of a full and fair hearing because she prejudged the merits of his case and incorrectly determined that he provided false testimony, and that this violation caused him substantial prejudice. We hold (1) that we lack jurisdiction over Apraez’s petition for review because the BIA relied solely on the IJ’s discretionary determination that Apraez failed to show the requisite hardship under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D); and (2) that Apraez’s due process claim is unexhausted. We therefore dismiss Apraez’s petition. I “We review our subject matter jurisdiction de novo.” Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). The Immigration and Nationality Act vests the Attorney General with the discretion to “cancel removal of, and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States if the alien” shows: (1) he “has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such 2 Case: 19-13213 Date Filed: 04/28/2020 Page: 3 of 6 application”; (2) he “has been a person of good moral character during such period”; (3) he “has not been convicted of” certain criminal offenses; and (4) his “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to [his] spouse, parent, or child” who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); see also Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1222–23 (11th Cir. 2006) (noting that the BIA’s decision that a petitioner did not meet the INA’s “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard is “purely discretionary”). As relevant here, our jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decisions is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), which provides that “no court shall have jurisdiction to review” any judgments regarding the granting of, among other forms of relief, cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. See Martinez, 446 F.3d at 1221 (holding that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and Circuit precedent “squarely precludes us from reviewing the BIA’s conclusion that a petitioner has not met § 1229b(b)(1)(D)’s ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ standard”); see also Alhuay v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 661 F.3d 534, 549–50 (11th Cir. 2011) (dismissing a petition for lack of jurisdiction to the extent that the petitioner sought review ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals