USCA11 Case: 22-13188 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 06/13/2023 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-13188 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ MARIO BALTAZAR-FELIPE, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A216-021-055 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-13188 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 06/13/2023 Page: 2 of 6 2 Opinion of the Court 22-13188 Before WILSON, BRASHER, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Mario Baltazar-Felipe seeks review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Baltazar-Felipe’s application for cancellation of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Baltazar-Felipe argues that the BIA erred in concluding that one of his sons, who turned 21 years old after the IJ’s decision but before the BIA’s, was no longer a qualifying relative whose hardship was relevant to Baltazar- Felipe’s eligibility for cancellation of removal. After careful re- view, we deny the petition. We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the ex- tent the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision or explicitly agrees with the IJ’s findings. Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 799 (11th Cir. 2016). We lack jurisdiction to review any judgment re- garding cancellation of removal except to the extent that the peti- tioner raises a constitutional claim or question of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D). We review questions of law de novo. Jeune, 810 F.3d at 799. We will defer to the BIA’s interpretation of an immigration statute if: (1) the statute is ambiguous; and (2) the interpretation is reasonable and does not contradict the clear in- tent of Congress. De Sandoval v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1276, 1278–79 (11th Cir. 2006). USCA11 Case: 22-13188 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 06/13/2023 Page: 3 of 6 22-13188 Opinion of the Court 3 The BIA lacks the authority to engage in fact-finding, apart from taking judicial notice of facts not subject to reasonable dis- pute, and instead may only review factual findings made by the IJ to determine if those findings are clearly erroneous. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i), (iv). The “application of a legal standard to un- disputed or established facts” is a question of law. Guerrero- Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062, 1068 (2020). Under the INA, the Attorney General has the discretion to cancel the removal of noncitizens who are not lawful permanent residents (“LPRs”) if they establish that: (1) they have been con- tinuously physically present in the United States “for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application” for cancellation of removal; (2) they have been “person[s] of good moral character” while present in the United States; (3) they have not been convicted of certain specified crimi- nal offenses; and (4) their “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to their “spouse, parent, or child, who …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals