NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 24a0226n.06 No. 2 3

- 3532 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JOSE CRUZ LOZANO

- HERNANDEZ , Petitioner , v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General , Respondent
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE UNITED STATES BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS OPINION

B efore : KETHLEDGE, LARSEN and BLOOMEKATZ , Circuit Judges
. LARSEN , Circuit Judge
. Jose Cruz Lozano

- Hernandez petitions this court for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his applications for cancellation of removal o r , in the alternative, voluntary departure . The BIA denied Lozano

- Hernandez’s applications , concluding that his case did not warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. W e lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s dispositive exercise of its discretion
. We therefore DISMISS the petition for review
. I. Lozano

- Hernandez entered the United States illegally in May 1996 at the age of eighteen. He was apprehended by immigration authorities in 1998 and was granted voluntary departure to Mexico. T wo weeks after his voluntary departure , Lozano

- Hernandez reentered the United States illegally. He has remained in the United States since that time.No. 2 3

- 3532 , Lozano

- Hernandez v. Garland

- 2

-

Lozano

- Hernandez lives in Lora i n, Ohio, where he owns and operates a construction business . He is married to a United States citizen and has three United States

- citizen children from prior relationships and three United States

- citizen step

- children. All the children are now adults, but at the time of Lozano

- Hernandez’s immigration hearing , two were in high school, aged 17 and 18
. Lozano

- Hernandez is involved in the lives of his children and provides some support to his family
. But he previously failed to make child

- support payments and was $14,000 in arrear s at the time of his hearing . He also has a criminal record. He was convicted of disorderly conduct, possession of criminal tools, and attempted non

- support , and he was arrested for driving under the influence resulting in a conviction for reckless operation. In 2011, Lozano

- Hernandez was again apprehended by immigration authorities. The government initiated removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) . Lozano

- Hernandez conceded removability but applied for multiple forms of relief , only two of which are at issue here: cancellation of removal and voluntary departure
. 1 After a series of continuances , an Immigration Judge (IJ) held a hearing and denied Lozano

- Hernandez’s applications for relief
. T he IJ determined that Lozano

- Hernandez was ineligible for relief because he lacked good moral character and , with respect to cancellation of removal, he had failed to show that his removal would cause his qualifying relatives exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. The IJ also concluded that Lozano

- Hernandez was undeserving of relief as a matter of discretion. The BIA a ffirmed. The B IA concluded that Lozano

- Hernandez ’s application did “not warrant a favorable exercise of discretion for either cancellation of removal or voluntary departure.” AR 5. And he was not even eligible for cancellation of removal because he had not

1 The IJ and BIA denied Lozano

- Hernandez’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal , and protection under the Convention against Torture. Lozano

- Hernandez does not seek review of those decisions in this court.No. 2 3

- 3532 , Lozano

- Hernandez v. Garland

- 3

-

show n that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives . The BIA did not , however, adopt the IJ’s conclusion that Lozano

- Hernandez lacked good moral character. Lozano

- Hernandez now petitions this court for review
. II. The Attorney General “may” cancel removal or allow voluntary departure for aliens meeting certain eligibility requirements. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b, 1229c. To be eligible for either cancellation of removal or voluntary departure , an alien must have exhibited “good moral character” during the period set by statute
. Id. §§ 1229b(b)(1)(B), 1229c(b)(1)(B). Eligibility for cancellation of removal also requires an alien to show that removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his or her qualifying relatives. Id. § 1229b(b)(1) (D)
. We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s hardship determination “under [8 U.S.C.] § 1252(a)(2)(D), which gives Courts of Appeals jurisdiction to review ‘questions of law.’” Wilkinson v. Garland , 601 U.S. 209, 21 2, 217 (2024)
. But even if an alien meets all eligibility requirements, the Attorney General retains “ residual ‘ discretion to deny relief. ’ ” Singh v. Rosen , 984 F.3d 1142, 1147 (6th Cir. 2021) (quoting Galicia Del Valle v. Holder , 343 F. App’x 45, 51 (6th Cir. 2009))
. And we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s exercise of its discretion
. Id. at 1 148

– 49; 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (a)(2)(B) , (a)(2)(D)
. In this case, the BIA concluded that Lozano

- Hernandez was ineligible for cancellation of removal because he had not shown that his qualifying family members would suffer exceptionalNo. 2 3

- 3532 , Lozano

- Hernandez v. Garland

- 4

-

and extremely unusual hardship. Lozano

- Hernandez challenges that conclusion, which we have the statutory authority to review
. 2 Wilkinson , 601 U.S. at 217. But the BIA also concluded that “[Lozano

- Hernandez] does not warrant a favorable exercise of discretion for either cancellation of removal or voluntary departure.” AR 5. The BIA reached that conclusion after weighing Lozano

- Hernandez’s lengthy period of residence in the United Sta t es, his relationship with his family, his employment history, and his generosity toward others against his child

- support arrearage and his criminal record.

“ [ W ] e have no jurisdiction to review that discretionary decision.” Bernardino Murillo v. Barr , 795 F. App ’ x 437, 441 (6th Cir. 2019)
. We may entertain “constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review
. ” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). But Lozano

- Hernandez has not identified any constitutional or legal questions “underlying the BIA’s exercise of its discretion.” Berna r

dino Murillo , 795 F. App’x at 441 . “Thus, even if we were to conclude that [Lozano

- Hernandez’s] arguments regarding
. . . hardship had merit, we would have no authority to disturb the BIA’s discretionary denial of relief. ” Id. So we cannot grant hi m relief. The only remaining question is whether to deny or dismiss Lozano

- Hernandez’s petition for review
. W e think the proper course is to dismiss the petition for lack of subject

- matter jurisdiction. “ Because we cannot overturn the BIA’s discretionary denial of relief regardless of our legal conclusions, any opinion we reach on [Lozano

- Hernandez’s other] claims would be purely advisory and beyond our authority under Article III.” Ortega v. Holder , 736 F.3d 637, 640 (1st Cir. 2013) ; see also Ekasinta v. Gonzales , 415 F.3d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 2005) ( “ A bsent

2 Lozano

- Hernandez also challenges the IJ’s moral

- character finding. That is a mixed question reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Hernandez v. Garland , 59 F.4th 762, 768 (6th Cir. 2023). But the BIA did not rely on the IJ’s moral

- character finding , and t he BIA’s opinion is the one we review. Khalili v. Holder , 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009)
.No. 2 3

- 3532 , Lozano

- Hernandez v. Garland

- 5

-

authority to review the discretionary ground, any opinion of ours reviewing the nondiscretionary ground could not affect the final order’s validity and so would be advisory only
. ”).

* * * W e DISMISS the petition for review
.