Case ID: f-appx_376/html/0420-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carlos David GONZALEZ-RUIZ, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-60614
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 29, 2010.
    Stephen R. Ramirez, Law Offices of Garcia, Ramirez, Gonzalez & Pina, Harlin-gen, TX, for Respondent.
    Karen L. Melnik, Theodore C. Hirt, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Carlos David Gonzalez-Ruiz (Gonzalez) petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) vacating the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) grant of his application for discretionary relief in the form of cancellation of removal under § 240A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l). Gonzalez asserts that the BIA erred in reversing the IJ’s decision because the BIA failed to engage in a substantive review of the facts as the IJ had done. He also maintains, however, that the BIA reviewed the facts de novo but failed to consider many positive factors that weighed in favor of granting relief.

To the extent that Gonzalez challenges the BIA’s discretionary denial of relief, we lack jurisdiction to consider this contention. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Delgado-Reynua v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 596, 599-600 (5th Cir.2006). Gonzalez attempts to circumvent this jurisdictional limitation by arguing that his claim concerning the BIA’s method of analysis presents a legal question. This argument is unavailing. See Delgado-Reynua, 450 F.3d at 599-600; see also Sung v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir.2007) (holding that the court lacked jurisdiction over a claim that the agency failed to consider all relevant factors in denying cancellation of removal). Gonzalez’s petition for review is thus DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.