# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 21

- 60115 Summary Calendar

Nelson Santana

- Casas,

Petitioner ,

versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General , Respondent

.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A202 184 300

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *

Nelson Santana

- Casas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing
his appeal from the denial of his application for cancellation of removal.
Santana

- Casas contends that the BIA erred in determining that he was

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 22, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-60115 Document: 00516291122 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2022No. 21

- 60115

2 ineligible for cancellation of removal and that he did not warrant a discretionary grant of cancellation of removal. Although he also argues that
the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction to order him removed , this claim is
unexhausted and we accordingly lack jurisdiction to address it. See Wang v. Ashcroft , 260 F.3d 448, 452

– 53 (5th Cir. 2001).

We review the BIA’s decision and consider the immigration judge’s decision only to the extent that it influe nced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions , 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence and legal determinations are reviewed de novo. Guerrero Trejo

v. Garland , 3 F.4th 760, 77 4 (5th Cir. 2021)

. Cancellation of removal i s available to applicants who have been continuously present in the United States for 10 or more years prior to filing an application, who can establish good moral character during that time, who have no disqualifying convictions, and whose spouse, childre n, or parent would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if the applicant
were removed. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
Despite Santana

- Casas’ s assertions to the contrary, the consequences facing his children if he were removed are not “ ‘substantiall y’ beyond the ordinary hardship that would be expected when a close family member leaves this country .” Guerrero Trejo , 3 F.4th at 77 5 ( quoting In Re Monreal

Aguinaga , 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 62 (BIA 2001)) . Moreover, although he claims that the BIA required him to demonstrate an unconscionable level of hardship and failed to consider the hardship factors in the aggregate, the record reflects that the BIA explicitly considered the financial, emotional, and physical factors in t he aggregate before determining that he failed to
demonstrate an extremely unusual hardship to his daughter. Because resolution of this issue is dispositive as to his lack of eligibility for cancellation of removal, s ee § 1229b(b)(1), we need not consider his argument regarding Case: 21-60115 Document: 00516291122 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2022No. 21

- 60115

3 whether he has a disqualifying conviction or whether he warranted
cancellation of removal as an act of discretion

. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976)

. Accordingly, the petition for review is DISMISSED in part and
DENIED in part. Case: 21-60115 Document: 00516291122 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/22/2022