Case: 20-10922 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-10922 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A201-263-388 FREDY ANDABLO GUTIERREZ, et al., Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (September 28, 2020) Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 20-10922 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 2 of 6 Petitioners, Fredy Andablo Gutierrez and Carolina Hernandez Herrera, seek review of a February 10, 2020 decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”), dismissing their appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. The IJ determined that Petitioners failed to establish (1) a ten-year continuous physical presence in the United States and (2) exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their U.S. citizen children. The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. After careful review, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. I. Petitioners are natives and citizens of Mexico. They entered the United States without being admitted or paroled by an immigration officer. On October 11, 2011, the Department of Homeland Security served Petitioners with notices to appear in immigration court. The notice charged Petitioners under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as removable aliens present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. At an immigration court hearing in September 2015, Petitioners, represented by counsel, conceded removability as charged but indicated they would apply for cancellation of removal. Following a hearing, the IJ issued a written decision denying Petitioners’ applications for cancellation of removal. The IJ determined that Petitioners showed neither the required ten years’ continuous physical 2 Case: 20-10922 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 3 of 6 presence in the United States, nor an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their U.S. citizen children. Petitioners timely appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA. On February 10, 2020, the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. The BIA concluded that (1) the IJ’s factual finding that the Petitioners failed to demonstrate a ten-year continuous physical presence was not clearly erroneous, and (2) the IJ applied the correct legal standard in concluding the Petitioners’ children would not experience exceptional and extremely unusual hardship upon their removal. Following the BIA’s affirmance, Petitioners filed the instant petition for review. II. For the reasons below, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction and that the petition is due to be dismissed. We review de novo the issue of whether we have subject matter jurisdiction over a petition for review of a BIA decision. Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th. Cir. 2006). In Patel v. United States Attorney General, --- F.3d ---, 2020 WL 4873196 (11th Cir. Aug. 19, 2020) (en banc), this Court held that all eligibility determinations listed under Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 242(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), which concerns “[d]enials of discretionary relief,” are precluded from judicial review, except to the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals