United States Court of Appeals

for 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 Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing 

her appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her 

application for cancellation of removal. She contends the BIA erred factually 

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

July 12, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-61237 Document: 00516390482 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2022
No. 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, our court 

lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s factual findings in cancellation-ofremoval 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). She failed to raise this issue before the BIA; accordingly, our court 

lacks jurisdiction to consider it. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 317 (5th 

Cir. 2009).

The record supports 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: 07/12/2022
No. 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