United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60904

Summary Calendar

Daniel Jonathan Juarez; Lucrecia Maribel Abrego De 

Juarez, 

Petitioners,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A206 067 105

Agency No. A206 067 106

Before Smith, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Daniel Johnathan Juarez and Lucrecia Maribel Abrego De Juarez, 

natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of a decision by the 

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal from the denial 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

August 11, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60904 Document: 00516428333 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2022
No. 20-60904

2

of their application for cancellation of removal. The couple argues that the 

BIA “overlooked and misperceived abundant evidence” of the hardship that 

their qualifying relatives would face were the couple removed and also failed 

to consider the evidence of hardship in the aggregate as required by prior case 

law.

Cancellation of removal is available to applicants who have been 

continuously present in the United States for at least ten 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). Although 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) deprives this court of jurisdiction to review the denial of 

discretionary relief of cancellation, the agency decision whether a non-citizen 

has sufficiently demonstrated exceptional and extremely unusual hardship 

for a qualifying relative requires the application of the legal standard to 

established facts and is therefore reviewable. Guerrero Trejo v. Garland, 3 

F.4th 760, 774 (5th Cir. 2021).

We review the BIA’s order and consider the immigration judge’s 

underlying decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA’s determination. 

Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). Although we review the 

agency’s legal conclusions de novo, Guerrero Trejo, 3 F.4th at 774, we may 

not review the fact findings of the agency in cancellation of removal cases, 

Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1622-23 (2022); § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).

Despite Juarez’s and Abrego de Juarez’s assertions to the contrary, 

the consequences facing their children, his father, and her mother if the 

couple 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 Matter of Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. 

Case: 20-60904 Document: 00516428333 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2022
No. 20-60904

3

Dec. 56, 62 (BIA 2001)). Moreover, although Juarez and Abrego de Juarez 

claim that the BIA failed to consider the hardship factors in the aggregate, the 

record reflects that the agency explicitly considered the medical, financial, 

emotional, and physical factors in the aggregate before determining that they

failed to demonstrate an extremely unusual hardship to their qualifying 

relatives. As to the couple’s argument that the agency failed to properly 

weigh the factors in favor of cancellation, we lack jurisdiction to consider this 

challenge to the agency’s discretionary denial of relief. See 

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Guerrero Trejo, 3 F.4th at 773-74.

The petition for review is DISMISSED in part for lack of 

jurisdiction and DENIED in part.

Case: 20-60904 Document: 00516428333 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/11/2022