[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-11278

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

SANTIAGO RAMIREZ-VILLAGOMEZ, 

Petitioner, 

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent.

____________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A205-122-831

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-11278 Date Filed: 03/30/2022 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 21-11278

Before WILSON, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Santiago Ramirez-Villagomez (“Ramirez”) seeks review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of 

removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). 

Ramirez argues that the BIA abused its discretion when it dismissed 

his appeal because he clearly demonstrated that his son would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship due to his medical 

conditions if Ramirez were removed to Mexico. Additionally, 

Ramirez argues that the IJ failed to adequately consider his evidence regarding his son’s medical conditions, and the BIA erred 

when it found the IJ’s consideration was adequate.

We review only the decision of the BIA, except that we review the IJ’s decision as well as the BIA’s to the extent that the BIA 

expressly adopts or explicitly agrees with the IJ’s decision. Ayala v. 

U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 947– 48 (11th Cir. 2010). We review 

questions of law de novo and administrative factfinding for substantial evidence. Id. at 948. 

We review our subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2006). Under 

the discretionary decision bar at INA § 242(a)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(a)(2)(B), we lack jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding eligibility for cancellation of removal. INA 242(a)(2)(B)(i), 

8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Patel v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 971 F.3d 1258, 

USCA11 Case: 21-11278 Date Filed: 03/30/2022 Page: 2 of 5
21-11278 Opinion of the Court 3

1279 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc), cert. granted, 141 S. Ct. 2850 (2021). 

However, we retain jurisdiction to consider genuine, colorable 

constitutional or legal claims, though “a party may not dress up a 

claim with legal or constitutional clothing to invoke [this Court’s] 

jurisdiction.” INA § 242(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Patel, 

971 F.3d at 1272. 

For certain nonpermanent residents, the Attorney General 

may cancel the removal of an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States if the alien: (1) has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 

ten years prior to the application; (2) has been a person of good 

moral character for those ten years; (3) has not been convicted of 

certain crimes; and (4) establishes that his removal “would result in 

exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his spouse, parent, 

or child who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. INA 

§ 240A(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). A challenge to the BIA’s determination that an alien has not shown exceptional and extremely 

unusual hardship, for cancellation of removal purposes, is not a 

constitutional claim or question of law subject to review under the 

INA § 242(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), exception. Alhuay v. 

U.S. Att’y Gen., 661 F.3d 534, 549–50 (11th Cir. 2011). 

Claims that the agency failed to give reasoned consideration 

to an issue is a question of law that we review de novo. Jeune v. 

Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 799 (11th Cir. 2016). In a reasoned-consideration examination, we look to whether the agency has “consider[ed] the issues raised and announce[ed] its decision in terms 

sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard 

USCA11 Case: 21-11278 Date Filed: 03/30/2022 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 21-11278

and thought and not merely reacted.” Id. at 803 (quotation marks 

omitted and alterations in original). We have sustained reasoned 

consideration claims in three sets of circumstances: “when the BIA 

misstates the contents of the record, fails to adequately explain its 

rejection of logical conclusions, or provides justifications for its decisions which are unreasonable and which do not respond to any 

arguments in the record.” Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 931 F.3d 1327, 

1334 (11th Cir. 2019) (internal quotations omitted). “All failures to 

give reasoned consideration thus share a common trait: [t]he 

[BIA’s] opinion, read alongside the evidentiary record, forces us to 

doubt whether we and the [BIA] are, in substance, looking at the 

same case.” Id. The agency does not need to discuss all the record 

evidence, but in some cases “it is practically impossible . . . to write 

a reviewable decision without discussing ‘highly relevant’ evidence.” Id. However, the BIA and IJ “are not required to address 

specifically each claim the petitioner made or each piece of evidence the petitioner presented.” Ayala, 605 F.3d at 948 (quotations 

omitted). 

Ramirez’s claim that the evidence he provided was sufficient 

to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship is a factual 

question that we lack jurisdiction to review. But his claim that the 

IJ did not consider all of his evidence regarding his son’s medical 

conditions, and that the BIA erred when it found the IJ’s consideration adequate, is a question of law that we can review. Nonetheless, his claim fails because the IJ gave reasoned consideration to his 

evidence. The IJ mentioned multiple documents in his ruling 

USCA11 Case: 21-11278 Date Filed: 03/30/2022 Page: 4 of 5
21-11278 Opinion of the Court 5

(though he discussed them one at a time) and identified the key 

facts from Ramirez’s medical documents. Thus, the BIA did not 

err in finding the IJ’s consideration adequate. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part. 

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. 

USCA11 Case: 21-11278 Date Filed: 03/30/2022 Page: 5 of 5