USCA11 Case: 22-10117 Date Filed: 10/28/2022 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-10117 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ GENARO LOTZIN, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A201-234-320 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-10117 Date Filed: 10/28/2022 Page: 2 of 4 2 Opinion of the Court 22-10117 Before ROSENBAUM, PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Genaro Lotzin seeks review of the Board of Immigration Ap- peals’ (“BIA”) final order adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. He argues that the BIA erroneously relied on Matter of J-J-G-, 27 I&N Dec. 808 (BIA 2020), as additional support for denying his ap- plication because Matter of J-J-G- did not exist at the time of the IJ’s decision. We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopted or explicitly agreed with the opinion of the IJ. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 947-48 (11th Cir. 2010). We review the BIA’s legal determinations and interpreta- tions of statutes de novo. Castillo-Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen, 446 F.3d 1190, 1195 (11th Cir. 2006). The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 240A(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), provides that the Attorney General may cancel the removal of a non-permanent resident alien if that alien, inter alia, “establishes that removal would result in exceptional and ex- tremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States.” INA § 240A(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). Pursuant to INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), we do not have jurisdiction to review “any judgment regarding the USCA11 Case: 22-10117 Date Filed: 10/28/2022 Page: 3 of 4 22-10117 Opinion of the Court 3 granting of” cancellation of removal. INA § 242(a)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B). However, we retain jurisdiction to review legal and constitutional questions related to cancellation of re- moval. INA § 242(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(D); Flores-Alonso v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 36 F.4th 1095, 1099 (11th Cir. 2022). Nevertheless, even when a petition for review raises a legal or constitutional claim, we lack jurisdiction to review the claim if the BIA denied relief on an alternative, independent basis that is unreviewable. Malu v. U.S. Att’y Gen, 764 F.3d 1282, 1290-91 (11th Cir. 2014) (noting that we could not review the otherwise-review- able question of law because doing so would result in “an advisory opinion” that could not change the judgment because of the unre- viewable alternative basis of denial). We also lack jurisdiction to consider a claim raised in a petition for review unless the petitioner has exhausted his available administrative remedies. INA § 242(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen, 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). A petitioner fails to ex- haust his administrative remedies when he “neglect[s] to assert an error before the BIA that he …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals