Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-60253/USCOURTS-ca5-09-60253-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric H. Holder, Jr., U. S. Attorney General
Respondent
Julia Dolores Zapeta Puac
Petitioner

Document Text:

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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60253

Summary Calendar

JULIA DOLORES ZAPETA PUAC, 

 Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A 099 617 830

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner Julia Dolores Zapeta Puac seeks review of a final deportation

order entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA dismissed

Puac’s appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for

cancellation of removal, asylum, and protection under the Convention Against

Torture. Puac now petitions for a review of the denial of her application for

cancellation of removal, arguing that the BIA board member should have

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 11, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 Case: 09-60253 Document: 00511000652 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2010
No. 09-60253

 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(e)(6): Panel decisions. Cases may only be assigned for review by a 1

three-member panel if the case presents one of these circumstances:

(i) The need to settle inconsistencies among the rulings of different immigration judges;

(ii) The need to establish a precedent construing the meaning of laws, regulations, or procedures; 

(iii) The need to review a decision by an immigration judge or the Service that is not in

conformity with the law or with applicable precedents;

(iv) The need to resolve a case or controversy of major national import; 

(v) The need to review a clearly erroneous factual determination by an immigration judge; or 

(vi) The need to reverse the decision of an immigration judge or the Service, other than a reversal

2

remanded or referred the case to a three-member panel and that her due process

rights were violated. 

This court reviews only the decision of the BIA and not that of the IJ,

except to the extent that the IJ's decision influenced the BIA’s decision.

Gonzalez-Maldonado v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 975, 976 (5th Cir. 2007). Factual

findings of the BIA and IJ are reviewed for substantial evidence and questions

of law and constitutional claims are reviewed de novo. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d

588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). 

Puac claims that the BIA erred by issuing a “summary affirmance,” or

affirmance without opinion, under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(4). On the contrary, the

BIA issued a four-page decision dismissing Puac’s administrative appeal. The

decision clearly stated why the BIA did not find error in the findings of the IJ.

Puac also claims that the decision by a single BIA board member violated

agency regulations and that her case should have been referred to a threemember panel or remanded for additional fact finding. These claims are

unwarranted. As stated in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e): “Unless a case meets the

standards for assignment to a three-member panel under paragraph (e)(6) of this

section, all cases shall be assigned to a single Board member for disposition.”

Puac has not shown that her case meets the standards for assignment to a

three-member panel under §1003.1(e)(6). See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(6) (defining

the limited circumstances in which review by a three-member panel is

permissible). Thus, the BIA’s decision by a single board member was 1

 Case: 09-60253 Document: 00511000652 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2010
No. 09-60253

under § 1003.1(e)(5). 

3

permissible. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(5) (permitting a single BIA member to

consider the merits of a case and to issue a brief order affirming the decision

under review). 

Remand was also not warranted since the BIA was exercising de novo

review of a discretionary issue. The BIA declined to reverse the IJ’s

determination that Puac’s departure from the United States would not result in

exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her United States citizen child.

 This is a discretionary determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(b)(1) (The Attorney

General may cancel removal). The BIA retains de novo jurisdiction to review

this issue. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (“The Board may review questions of

law, discretion, and judgment and all other issues in appeals from decisions of

immigration judges de novo.”) Thus, the BIA did not need to remand Puac’s

case. 

Puac alleges that the BIA violated “equal protection” by failing to remand

her case and that the IJ violated “due process” by failing to consider all the

relevant factors in the hardship determination. These constitutional claims are

without merit. The IJ’s discretionary denial of relief does not amount to a

constitutional violation. Assaad v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 471, 475 (5th Cir.

2004)(“failure to receive relief that is purely discretionary in nature does not

amount to a deprivation of a liberty interest.”). The Fifth Amendment affords

an alien the right to “(1) notice of the charges against him, (2) a hearing before

an executive or administrative tribunal, and (3) a fair opportunity to be heard.”

Manzano-Garcia v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 462, 470 (5th Cir. 2005). Puac has not

alleged that these requirements were not met.

 The Petitioner’s assertions do not involve any constitutional claims, but

rather “an abuse of discretion argument cloaked in constitutional garb.”

 Case: 09-60253 Document: 00511000652 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/11/2010
No. 09-60253

4

Hadwani v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 798, 800 -801 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting

Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001)). What the petitioner

asks is that this court reverse the IJ’s finding that her removal does not satisfy

the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” requirement needed for

cancellation of removal. This we cannot do. As noted, this is a discretionary

determination by the Attorney General. This court does not have jurisdiction to

review judgements of cancellation of removal under § 1229(b). See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(B). 

 Accordingly, the petition for review must be DENIED. 

DENIED.

 Case: 09-60253 Document: 00511000652 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/11/2010