### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-60862 Summary Calendar

JORGE SALAZAR MARTINEZ,
Petitioner

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A097 894 860

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jorge Salazar-Martinez (Salazar) p e t i t i o n s this court for review of the decision of the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from t h e decision of the Immigration J udge (IJ) denying his application f o r adjustment of status to permanent resident pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255. This court “has the authority to review only the BIA’s decision, not the IJ’s decision, unless the IJ’s decision has some impact on the BIA’s decision.” Wang

v. Holder , 569 F.3d 5 31, 536 ( 5th Cir. 2009). Thus, the court’s r eview herein is U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Novem ber 13, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-60862 Document: 00512439503 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2013No. 12-60862

limited to the BIA’s adoption of the IJ’s determination that S alazar was not entitled to relief i n the exercise of discret i o n . Therefore, the c o urt lacks jurisdiction to address Salazar’s argument that the IJ erred in determining that Salazar h ad not established by clear and convincing evidence that his m arriage

was bona fide or his argument that the IJ found him inadmissible for a djustment of status because he w a s an alien who is likely at a ny time t o become a public charge. Salazar argues that the IJ applied the i ncorrect standard of law in exercising his discretion. He contends that the a dverse f actors relied on by the IJ have not been treated as adverse in immigration proceedings and, thus, the IJ applied the incorrect standard in r equesting that he provid e unusual or outstanding equities to rebut those factors. This court is statutorily barred from reviewing the IJ’s and BIA’s purely discretionary d enial of Sa l a z a r ’ s application for a djustment of status to permanent resident fi l e d p u r suant to § 1255. See Ayanbadejo v. Chertoff , 517 F.3d 273, 275, 276-78 & 277 n.11 (5th Cir. 2008); Hadwani v . Gonzales , 445 F.3d 798, 800 (5th Cir. 2006). This court is not p recluded from reviewing claims raising constitutional or purely l egal questions. See 8 U

. S .C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Despite the fact that a p etitioner’s purported challenge t o the BIA’s standard of review is phrased as a question of law, th e court l acks jurisdiction to consider that challenge if it was actually a request to review the denial of discretionary relief. Delgado-Reynua v. Gonzales , 450 F.3d 596, 599-600 (5th Cir. 2006). Relying on the standard announced in M atter of Arai , 13 I. & N. Dec. 494 (BIA 1 970) , t h e I J c onsidered all the positive and adverse factors in Salazar’s

case in determining that relief was n o t w a r ranted as a matter of discretion. Salazar has not provided evidence to support his conclusional assertion that the multiple adverse factors cited affect the majority of young couples. Salazar has

n o t r aised a substantial l egal or c onstitutional question i n that he is mer e l y challenging the IJ’s balancing of the factors that were present in his case. This
2 Case: 12-60862 Document: 00512439503 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/13/2013No. 12-60862

determination w as a discretionary decision, which the court lacks j urisdiction to review. See § 1 2 5 2 ( a) (2 ) (B),(D); Delgado-Reynua , 450 F.3d at 599-600; H adwani , 445 F.3d at 800. Therefore, the petition for review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

3 Case: 12-60862 Document: 00512439503 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/13/2013