Case ID: f-appx_210/html/0452-01.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

Juana HORNBURG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-60548.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Dec. 20, 2006.
    
      Pablo Rodriguez, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, John Clifford Cunningham, Stacy Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Ann Carroll Varnon, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Immigration Litigation, Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
    Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Juana Medina Hornburg appeals the denial of her application for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. The immigration judge (IJ) determined that Hornburg had not made the requisite showing that her United States citizen daughter would suffer “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” See § 1229b(b)(l)(D). A single member of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s opinion, thereby making the IJ’s decision the final agency determination. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4).

Where the BIA affirms the IJ decision without opinion, this court reviews the IJ’s decision. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 831-32 (5th Cir.2003). To the extent that Hornburg challenges the IJ’s discretionary determination that she had not made the requisite showing under § 1229b(b)(l)(D), this court is without jurisdiction to hear her petition. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (ii); Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir.2004).

Hornburg also challenges the BIA’s application of its summary affirmance procedures to her case, arguing that the procedure violated her due process rights and that her appeal did not satisfy the requirements for employing that procedure enumerated in § 1003.1(e)(4), (e)(6). This court has previously held the BIA’s summary affirmance procedures constitutional. Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 832-33. The IJ’s decision met the criteria for summary affirmance pursuant to § 1003.1(e).

Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction and DENIED in part. 
      
       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.