USCA11 Case: 21-10937 Date Filed: 07/28/2022 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-10937 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ MARIBEL CASTANEDA-REYES, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A056-610-539 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-10937 Date Filed: 07/28/2022 Page: 2 of 8 2 Opinion of the Court 21-10937 Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Maribel Castaneda-Reyes seeks review of the Board of Im- migration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for cancellation of removal and denying her motion to remand her case to the IJ for the con- sideration of new evidence. She raises two issues. First, she argues that the BIA failed to apply de novo review when reviewing the IJ’s determination that she was not entitled to cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion, and that the BIA applied the wrong legal standard for cancellation of removal because it did not consider all of her positive equities and mischaracterized the evidence in its dis- cussion of the negative equities. Second, she argues that the BIA, in denying her motion to remand, erred by failing to accept as true the contents of her and her mother’s declarations supporting the motion. I. We review the BIA’s decision as the final agency decision, and we review the IJ’s decision as well to the extent that the BIA expressly adopts or agrees with it. Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). We review whether we have subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Blanc v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 996 F.3d 1274, 1277 (11th Cir. 2021). Questions of law are also USCA11 Case: 21-10937 Date Filed: 07/28/2022 Page: 3 of 8 21-10937 Opinion of the Court 3 reviewed de novo. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 48 (11th Cir. 2010). Under the discretionary decision jurisdictional bar, we lack jurisdiction to review “any judgment regarding the granting of” an application for cancellation of removal. Immigration and Nation- ality Act (“INA”) § 242(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see Patel v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 971 F.3d 1258, 1272 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc), aff’d, 142 S. Ct. 1614 (2022). Under the criminal alien bar, we lack jurisdiction to review a final order of removal against “an alien who is removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense covered in” 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B). INA §242(a)(2)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Notwithstanding those jurisdictional bars, we retain jurisdiction to consider constitutional claims and ques- tions of law. INA § 242(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Consti- tutional claims or questions of law must be colorable, though, and “a party may not dress up a claim with legal or constitutional cloth- ing to invoke [this Court’s] jurisdiction.” Patel, 971 F.3d at 1272. A petitioner may not bring a factual challenge to an order denying cancellation of removal. Id. An argument that …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals