### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 12-60253 Summary Calendar

ALEJANDRA FRANCO BERRIOZABAL DE CHAVEZ,
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. A088 877 598

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alejandra Franco Berriozabal de Chavez (Chavez), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decisio n di s m i ssing her appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order of removal and denial of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. Chavez contends that the BIA erred i n af f ir ming the IJ’s denial of her application for cancellation of removal because the IJ misapplied the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard set forth in § 1 2 2 9b(b)(1)(D). Specifically, she argues U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Februa ry 21 , 20 13 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-60253 Document: 00512150404 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2013No. 12-60253

that the IJ and BIA erred as a matter of law by (1) relyi n g solely on the BIA’s non-precedential decision in In re Andazola-Rivas , 23 I & N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002), (2) failing to follow this court’s precedential decision in Ramos v. INS, 695 F.2d 181 (5th Cir. 1983), and (3) failing to properly consider and weigh evid e n c e concerning the significant educational hardship her United States citizen children would face in Mexico. We are statutorily barred from reviewing the IJ’s and BIA’s purely discretionary denial of cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Sung

v. Keisler , 50 5 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir. 2007). This jurisdiction-stripping provision does not preclude review of constitutional claims or questions of law. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Sung, 505 F.3d at 377. However, we look past an alien’s framing of an issue and will decline to consider “an abuse of discretion argument cloaked in constitutional garb.” Hadwani v. Gonzales , 445 F.3d 798, 801 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted). Chavez’s arguments are nothing more than a disagreement with the IJ’s and BIA’s weighing of the f a c t ors underlying the discretionary hardship determination. Her objection to the IJ’s and BIA’s reliance on Andazola-Rivas is an oblique at tempt to dispute their unfavorable assessment of the intensity of the educational hardship Chavez’s removal would have on her United States citizen children. Further, the IJ’s a n d BIA’s decisions reflect that they meaningfu lly c o n sidered all of the relevant hardship factors and evidence, individually and cumulatively. Because Chavez challenges th e c o n sideration and weighing of the evidence, we lack jurisdic ti on over her claim that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s denial of her application for cancellation of removal. See Sung, 505 F.3d at 377. Chavez also contends that the IJ violated her du e process rights by (1) denying her an opportunity to accept or d e c li ne voluntary departure after hearing the conditions a n d a m ount of the departure bond, and (2) failing to provide her with the mandatory warnings set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)(3).

2 Case: 12-60253 Document: 00512150404 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2013No. 12-60253

Further, she contends that the BIA violated her due process rights by failing to remand the case to the I J t o gr ant a new period of voluntary departure and provide her with the requisite warnings. Because these issues were not raised before the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to consider them in the instant petition for review. See Roy v. Ashcroft , 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 200 4). Fi n ally , Chavez contends that the de facto removal of her United States citizen children would deprive them of their constitutional right to an education in the United States without due process of law and, thus, the IJ and BIA erred in failing to appoint an attorney ad litem to represent the children in Chavez’s removal proceedings. A United States citizen child’s constit u ti o n al rights are not implicated by the deportation of a parent, even where a de facto deportation of the child would surely occur. Gonzalez-Cuevas v. INS, 5 1 5 F .2d 1222, 1224 (5th Cir. 1 9 75); Perdido v. INS, 420 F.2d 1179, 1181 (5th Cir. 1969). Chavez’s conclusional and unsupported allegations are insufficient to present a colorable constitutional or legal question. Cf. Koch v. Puckett , 907 F.2d 524, 530 (5th Cir. 1990). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider this claim in the instant petition for review. See § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Falek v. Gonzales , 475 F.3d 285, 289 n.2 (5th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, Chavez’s petition f o r review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

3 Case: 12-60253 Document: 00512150404 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/21/2013