Case: 19-60068 Document: 00515263993 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 19-60068 January 8, 2020 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk EFRAIN GUADALUPE RONQUILLO-HERRERA, also known as Efrain Ronquillo-Herrera, Petitioner v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A044 542 896 Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Petitioner Efrain Guadalupe Ronquillo-Herrera, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. He argues that the IJ and the BIA erred in denying the requested * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 19-60068 Document: 00515263993 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2020 No. 19-60068 relief and committed procedural errors in doing so. We generally have authority to review only the BIA’s decision but review the IJ’s as well when it affects that of the BIA. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). Findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, while legal questions, including jurisdictional questions, are reviewed de novo. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517-18 (5th Cir. 2012); Rodriguez v. Holder, 705 F.3d 207, 210 (5th Cir. 2013). This court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction. Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir. 2009). Because it is undisputed that Ronquillo-Herrera is removable based upon a conviction for a controlled substance offense, we lack jurisdiction to review the factual conclusions of the IJ and the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 693-94 (5th Cir. 2019). Although this does not prevent us from reaching questions of law, see § 1252(a)(2)(D), most of Ronquillo-Herrera’s procedural arguments are unexhausted and therefore subject to another jurisdictional bar. See § 1252(d)(1); Omari, 562 F.3d at 319-21. This court retains jurisdiction to the extent Ronquillo-Herrera presents an exhausted argument that the IJ ignored relevant substantial evidence. However, we are satisfied from our review of the record that Ronquillo-Herrera received meaningful consideration of the evidence supporting his claims. See Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 1996). PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. 2 19-60068 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ca5 5th Cir. Efrain Ronquillo-Herrera v. William Barr, U. S. At 8 January 2020 Immigration Unpublished 52b0876c18a44e7ffc49dfa6143f6cf29a893cba
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals