United States Court of Appeals

for 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 Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 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: 04/22/2022
No. 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 influenced 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, 774 (5th Cir. 2021).

Cancellation of removal is 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, children, 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 “‘substantially’ beyond the 

ordinary hardship that would be expected when a close family member leaves 

this country.” Guerrero Trejo, 3 F.4th at 775 (quoting In Re MonrealAguinaga, 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 the 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, see § 1229b(b)(1), we need not consider his argument regarding 

Case: 21-60115 Document: 00516291122 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2022
No. 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