Case: 21-60039 Document: 00516650814 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/20/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 20, 2023 No. 21-60039 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Jorge Armando Ayala Chapa, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A044 330 761 Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Elrod and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Andrew S. Oldham, Circuit Judge: The Government ordered Jorge Arman Ayala Chapa removed from the United States because he’s an alien convicted of a controlled substance offense. He applied for cancellation of removal. An immigration judge denied his application. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal and denied his motion to reconsider. We lack jurisdiction to review either decision. Case: 21-60039 Document: 00516650814 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/20/2023 No. 21-60039 I. Jorge Armando Ayala Chapa is a citizen of Mexico. From 2005 to 2020, Ayala Chapa was arrested and convicted for several crimes. In 2005, he was arrested for possession of marijuana, charged as a juvenile, and granted deferred probation. In 2006, he was arrested for possession of marijuana and for unlawfully carrying a weapon; these charges were dismissed. In 2011, he pled guilty to delivering cocaine on two separate occasions. In 2017, he was convicted of marijuana possession. In 2020, he was convicted of possession of a controlled substance. On February 27, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security charged him with removability under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Ayala Chapa admitted the factual allegations and conceded the charge of removability. Ayala Chapa applied for cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied his application for all claims. Ayala Chapa appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA dismissed the appeal. Ayala Chapa petitioned for review in this court. He only preserved his cancellation of removal claim. See Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 593 n.1 (5th Cir. 2021). Ayala Chapa also filed a timely motion with the BIA to reconsider. The BIA denied relief. Ayala Chapa again sought review in this court. Both petitions are before us. He raises several claims. Before reaching the merits, however, we must assess our jurisdiction on a claim-by-claim basis. See Fakhuri v. Garland, 28 F.4th 623, 627 (5th Cir. 2022). 2 Case: 21-60039 Document: 00516650814 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/20/2023 No. 21-60039 II. We begin with Ayala Chapa’s cancellation of removal claim. All agree that Ayala Chapa is statutorily eligible to apply for cancellation, so that’s not at issue here. Cf. Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021); Mireles- Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213 (5th Cir. 2003). Rather, the only question is whether Congress gave us jurisdiction to review the BIA’s purely discretionary decision to deny cancellation. It did not. Cancellation of removal is authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. Congress expressly stripped our jurisdiction, however, over “any judgment …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals