Santiago Ramirez-Villagomez v. U.S. Attorney General


USCA11 Case: 21-11278 Date Filed: 03/30/2022 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-11278 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ SANTIAGO RAMIREZ-VILLAGOMEZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A205-122-831 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-11278 Date Filed: 03/30/2022 Page: 2 of 5 2 Opinion of the Court 21-11278 Before WILSON, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Santiago Ramirez-Villagomez (“Ramirez”) seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order affirming the Im- migration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Ramirez argues that the BIA abused its discretion when it dismissed his appeal because he clearly demonstrated that his son would suf- fer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship due to his medical conditions if Ramirez were removed to Mexico. Additionally, Ramirez argues that the IJ failed to adequately consider his evi- dence regarding his son’s medical conditions, and the BIA erred when it found the IJ’s consideration was adequate. We review only the decision of the BIA, except that we re- view the IJ’s decision as well as the BIA’s to the extent that the BIA expressly adopts or explicitly agrees with the IJ’s decision. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 947–48 (11th Cir. 2010). We review questions of law de novo and administrative factfinding for sub- stantial evidence. Id. at 948. We review our subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Mar- tinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2006). Under the discretionary decision bar at INA § 242(a)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), we lack jurisdiction to review any judgment re- garding eligibility for cancellation of removal. INA 242(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Patel v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 971 F.3d 1258, USCA11 Case: 21-11278 Date Filed: 03/30/2022 Page: 3 of 5 21-11278 Opinion of the Court 3 1279 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc), cert. granted, 141 S. Ct. 2850 (2021). However, we retain jurisdiction to consider genuine, colorable constitutional or legal claims, though “a party may not dress up a claim with legal or constitutional clothing to invoke [this Court’s] jurisdiction.” INA § 242(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Patel, 971 F.3d at 1272. For certain nonpermanent residents, the Attorney General may cancel the removal of an alien who is inadmissible or deport- able from the United States if the alien: (1) has been physically pre- sent in the United States for a continuous period of not less than ten years prior to the application; (2) has been a person of good moral character for those ten years; (3) has not been convicted of certain crimes; and (4) establishes that his removal “would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his spouse, parent, or child who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. INA § 240A(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). A challenge to the BIA’s de- termination that an alien …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals