NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 19-1749 ______________ ROBINSHON ANTONIO NUNEZ-LIRIANO, a/k/a ROBINSHON LIRIANO, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision and Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA-1: A215-589-340) Immigration Judge: Honorable Dinesh C. Verma ______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) October 28, 2019 BEFORE: SMITH, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges (Filed: November 7, 2019) ______________ OPINION* ______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge. Robinshon Antonio Nunez-Liriano petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his appeal from the decision of the Immigration Judge finding him removable. We will deny the petition for review. I A citizen of the Dominican Republic, Nunez-Liriano entered the United States without inspection in 2004. In May 2018, the Department of Homeland Security charged him with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Nunez-Liriano appeared before the IJ and admitted the factual allegations against him, conceding removability. He then sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), alleging that his United States citizen wife, his stepdaughter, and his biological son would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he were removed from the United States. The IJ found that Nunez-Liriano was not eligible for cancellation of removal because he did not “meet the requisite hardship standard” of Section 1229b(b)(1). On appeal, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision and ordered Nunez-Liriano removed to the Dominican Republic. II We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). “Where, as here, the BIA issues a written decision on the merits, we review its decision and not the decision of the IJ” and we “look to the IJ’s ruling only insofar as the BIA defers to it.” Baptiste v. Att’y Gen., 841 F.3d 601, 605 (3d Cir. 2016) (internal quotations omitted); Huang v. Att’y Gen., 620 F.3d 372, 379 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Chavarria v. Gonzalez, 446 F.3d 508, 515 (3d Cir. 2006)). We “exercise de novo review” 2 over any legal or constitutional issues raised, but we lack jurisdiction to review “any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Duhaney v. Att’y Gen., 621 F.3d 340, 345 (3d Cir. 2010). III Nunez-Liriano claims the BIA engaged in improper factfinding on appeal and asks us to remand his case back to the IJ. Specifically, he challenges the BIA’s consideration of an expert report on his wife’s mental health, which he claims the IJ improperly failed to analyze in the first instance. He contends a remand is necessary so the IJ can undertake additional investigation and factfinding on the hardship his wife will suffer if he is removed. Section 1229b(b)(1) authorizes the Attorney General to cancel removal and adjust the status of an alien who is inadmissible or deportable ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals