[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-11247

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A205-005-849

FRANCISCO EZEQUIEL GUERRERO-CRUZ,

a.k.a. FRANCESCO EZEQUIEL CRUZ,

 Petitioner,

 versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(December 10, 2020)

USCA11 Case: 20-11247 Date Filed: 12/10/2020 Page: 1 of 6
2

Before MARTIN, BRANCH, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Francisco Guerrero-Cruz (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Mexico, 

petitions for review of the order by Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) 

affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The IJ’s decision denied 

Petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal. No reversible error has been 

shown; we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. 

In July 2011, the Department of Homeland Security served Petitioner with a 

Notice to Appear. The notice charged Petitioner as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 

1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as an alien present in the United States without having been 

admitted or paroled. 

Petitioner, through his lawyer, conceded removability. Petitioner later 

applied for cancellation of removal, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). In his 

application, Petitioner listed his two minor children (each of whom is a United 

States citizen) as qualifying relatives who would suffer hardship if Petitioner were

removed. 

USCA11 Case: 20-11247 Date Filed: 12/10/2020 Page: 2 of 6
3

Following a hearing, the IJ denied Petitioner’s application for cancellation of 

removal. In pertinent part, the IJ determined that Petitioner had failed to 

demonstrate that his removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual 

hardship” to Petitioner’s children.1

 The IJ found that -- although Petitioner’s 

children would experience some hardship by moving to Mexico -- such hardship 

would be limited to the “type of hardship that normally results from an alien’s 

deportation.” The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision.2

We review de novo our subject matter jurisdiction. See Martinez v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2006). 

The Attorney General has discretion to cancel the removal of an alien who 

shows, among other things, that “removal would result in exceptional and 

extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s . . . child, who is a citizen of the United 

States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). 

1 The IJ also determined that Petitioner had failed to show that he had resided continuously in the 

United States for at least ten years, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A). Because the BIA 

declined expressly to address the continuous-physical-presence issue, that issue is not before us 

in this appeal. See Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016) (“We do not 

consider issues that were not reached by the BIA.”). 

2 In addition to affirming the IJ’s decision on the merits, the BIA rejected Petitioner’s arguments 

(1) that a remand was necessary so that Petitioner could pursue a “U” visa, and (2) that Petitioner 

was deprived of due process based on the IJ’s denial of a continuance, his lawyer’s deficient 

performance, and missing transcripts from two master calendar hearings. Because Petitioner 

raises no challenge to the BIA’s ruling on these issues on appeal, those claims are not before us. 

USCA11 Case: 20-11247 Date Filed: 12/10/2020 Page: 3 of 6
4

Congress has precluded judicial review of “any judgment regarding the 

granting of relief under section . . . 1229b” -- including cancellation of removal --

“except to the extent that such review involves constitutional claims or questions 

of law.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D); Patel v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 971 F.3d 

1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc). To invoke our jurisdiction under section 

1252(a)(2)(D), a petitioner must allege a colorable constitutional or legal 

challenge. Patel, 971 F.3d at 1275. 

Because Petitioner seeks to challenge the BIA’s discretionary denial of 

cancellation of removal, we may review his petition only to the extent Petitioner 

raises a constitutional claim or question of law. 

On appeal, Petitioner argues that the IJ and the BIA failed to consider 

properly whether his children would suffer “exceptional and extremely unusual

hardship.” In deciding whether the hardship standard has been met, the IJ and the 

BIA consider “in the aggregate” the pertinent circumstances of the qualifying 

relative. In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 64 (BIA 2001). Factors that 

might be considered include (1) the qualifying relative’s age, health, and 

educational needs; (2) whether the qualifying relative would experience “[a] lower 

standard of living or adverse country conditions in the country of return”; and (3) 

USCA11 Case: 20-11247 Date Filed: 12/10/2020 Page: 4 of 6
5

whether the qualifying relative would lose a family support system. See id. at 63; 

In re Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 467, 470-71 (BIA 2002).

Petitioner contends that he demonstrated sufficient hardship based on his 

children’s ages, limited Spanish proficiency, their mother’s health concerns, and 

the decreased standard of living they would experience if moved to Mexico. 

Petitioner says the IJ and the BIA considered in isolation each of these hardship 

factors but never discussed or “dedicate[d] any analysis” to the impact of these 

factors “in the aggregate.” When considered together, Petitioner says the total 

weight of these factors would “crush” his children.

Petitioner characterizes his argument as raising a question of law: that the IJ 

and the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard. We disagree. Although Petitioner 

couches his argument as a legal question, Petitioner in effect challenges the weight 

given to the pertinent hardship factors and the adequacy of the IJ’s and BIA’s 

explanations. We have stressed that a petitioner may not create jurisdiction merely 

by “dress[ing] up a claim with legal or constitutional clothing.” See Patel, 971 

F.3d at 1272; see also Fynn v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 752 F.3d 1250, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 

2014) (rejecting a petitioner’s attempt to characterize his claim as a legal question: 

challenges to the “relative weight accorded to the evidence . . . is a ‘garden-variety 

USCA11 Case: 20-11247 Date Filed: 12/10/2020 Page: 5 of 6
6

abuse of discretion argument’ that is insufficient to state a legal claim over which 

we have jurisdiction under § 1252(a)(2)(D).”). 

Because Petitioner has raised no legal or constitutional challenge to the 

BIA’s denial of cancellation of removal, we lack jurisdiction to review the petition. 

PETITION DISMISSED.

USCA11 Case: 20-11247 Date Filed: 12/10/2020 Page: 6 of 6