# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 61237 Summary Calendar

**Claire Marlette Edou,**

Petitioner **,**

versus

**Merrick Garland,** U.S. Attorney General **,**
Respondent

**.**

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A088 655 122

Before **Barksdale, Willett,** and **Duncan,** Circuit Judges

**.**
**Per Curiam :**  *

Claire Marlette Edou , a native and citizen of the Gabonese Republic , petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal s’ (BIA) dismissing her appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her application for cancellation of removal . She conten ds the BIA er red factually

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 12, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-61237 Document: 00516390482 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2022No. 20

- 61237

2 and legally by failing to consider and weigh appropriately relevant factors in
its determination that she failed to demonstrate her removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her children

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b( b)(1 ).
In considering the BIA’s decision (and the IJ’s, to the extent it influenced the BIA), legal conclusions are reviewed de novo

. E.g. , Trejo v. Garland , 3 F.4th 760 , 74 ( 5th Cir. 2021)

. Regarding fact finding, o ur court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA ’s factual fin d ings in cancellation

- of

removal proceedings. Patel v. Garland , 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1622

– 23 (2022) ; 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).

Edou identifies no evidence, much less evidence compelling a different result, showing : the BIA mischaracterized the physician’s findings regarding her young daughter’s condition ; or the physician’s conclusion as

to the likely natural resolution of her medical issue changed at any point. See Trejo , 3 F.4th at 775

. Edou does not address : the BIA’s determination that she did not update that daughter’s medical information, although almost two years passed between the IJ’ s and BIA’s decisions ; or the BIA ’s briefing
extension to permit her an additional physician ’s appointment prior to submitting her brief on appeal. Instead, Edou challenges the IJ’s denial of her request for a continuation before the final hearing in a series of hearings stretching over ten years (the original notice to appear was issued in 2008, following Edou’s entering the United States in 1998 and overstaying her visa). S he failed to raise this issue before the BIA ; a ccordingly, our court
lack s j urisdiction to consider it

. See Omari v. Holder , 562 F.3d 314, 317 (5th Cir. 2009)

.
The record support s the BIA’s conclusion that Edou failed to show that the consequences of her removal are “substantially beyond the ordinary Case: 20-61237 Document: 00516390482 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2022No. 20

- 61237

3 hardship that would be expected when a close family member leaves this country”

. Trejo , 3 F.4th at 775 (citation omitted)

.
**DISMISSED** in part ; **DENIED** in part. Case: 20-61237 Document: 00516390482 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/12/2022