` [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 18

- 15240 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A216

- 027

- 460

EDUARDO BRIONES ALVAREZ, Petitioner,

versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________ (October 10, 2019) Before JILL PRYOR , NEWSOM, and ANDERSON , Circuit J udges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 18-15240 Date Filed: 10/10/2019 Page: 1 of 62 Eduardo Briones Alvarez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. In his petition, Alvarez asserts that the agency violated his due process rights by assigning substantial weight to a police report indicating that he had provided fraudulent identification documents to law enforcement. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, we lack jurisdiction to revie w the
B oard ’s decision to grant or deny discretionary applications for cancellation of removal unless (as relevant here) the petitioner raises a genuine constitutional claim or question of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2) (B), (D)

. Because Alvare z failed to raise a colorable legal question or constitutional issue on appeal , we dismiss his petition for lack of jurisdiction.
I Alvarez is a native and citizen of Mexico

. He entered the United States in 2005 without inspection and has continuously remained in the country since. After several arrests and convictions for traffic violations, the Department of Homeland Security served Alvarez with a Notice to Appear , charging him as removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) for being present in the United States without being admitted or paroled after inspection by an Immigration Officer

. Alvarez admitted to the allegations in the N otice and conceded removability. He then applied for a cancellation of removal and voluntary depa rture, which the IJ

Case: 18-15240 Date Filed: 10/10/2019 Page: 2 of 63 denied (and the Board affirmed) on the basis that Alvarez had failed to establish good moral character under 8 U.S.C. § 1101( f) ’s “catchall” provision

. Alvarez

now petitions for review of the B oard ’s final order.
II We review our own subject matter jurisdiction de novo

. Gonzalez

- Oropeza v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 321 F.3d 1331, 1332 (11th Cir. 2003). We review the B oard ’s legal determinations de novo

. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 605 F.3d 941, 947

– 48 (11th Cir. 2010 ). The Board’s decision is reviewed as the final agency decision, but we also review the IJ’s decision to the extent that the B oard expressly adopts it. Id

. When the B oard explicitly agrees with the IJ’s findings, “ we review the decisions of both the Board and the immigration judge as to those issues. ” Id. at 948. The Attorney General has discretion to cancel the removal of a non permanent resident alien if that alien (A) has been continuous ly physical ly presen t for not less than 10 years; (B) has shown good moral character during that period; (C) lack s certain criminal convictions; and (D) establishes that removal would

cause “ exceptional and extremely unusual hardship ” to a qualifying relative. 8
U.S.C . § 1229b(b)

. S everal classes of persons are deemed not to be of good moral character per se , s ee 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f) , b ut the statute also provides a “catchall ” provision which explains that failure to fall within one of these classes does n’ t

Case: 18-15240 Date Filed: 10/10/2019 Page: 3 of 64 preclude a finding that the person is not of good moral character for other reasons , i d. ; Jimenez

- Galicia v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 690 F.3d 1207, 1210 (11th Cir. 2012). Under the INA’s discretionary

- decision bar, we lack jurisdiction to review the B oard ’s dec ision to grant or deny discretionary applications for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Gonzalez

- Oropeza , 321 F.3d at 1332

– 33. The Board ’s determination that a person lacks good moral character under the

“ catchall provision ” is a discretionary decision

. Jimenez

- Galicia , 690 F.3d at 1210. We do, however, retain jurisdiction to review questions of law and constitutional claims regarding discretionary determinations. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). A question of law or constitutiona l claim must be “genuine,” and

“ we must look hard at Petitioner ’ s actual arguments

— not just his description of his claims

— to determine whether we have jurisdiction.” Jimenez

- Galicia , 690 F.3d at 1209, 1211 ; s ee also Alvarez Acosta v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 524 F.3d 1191, 1197 (11th Cir. 2008) (noting that constitutional claims must be “non

- frivolous”). While a question of law requires “the application of an undisputed fact pattern to a legal standard,” a discretionary decision “ requires an adjudicator to make a judgment call.” Bedoya

- Melendez v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 680 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2012) ( citations omitted). Here, t he agency made the discretionary decision that Alvarez failed to establish good moral character under the catchall provision

. In order for this Court

Case: 18-15240 Date Filed: 10/10/2019 Page: 4 of 65 to have jurisdiction, Alvarez must have raised a colorable legal question or constitutional issue in his petition

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). He d idn’t . In his brief, Alvarez explicitly argues that the B oard improperly “gave substantial weight to [ a ] one - sided narrative of the police report notwithstanding the consistent testimony of Petitioner denying any wrongdoing.” Although Alvarez states that the arrest report was “impermissible hearsay,” he doe sn’ t cit e to any precedent in support of his argument. And i n fact, w e have expressly held (as Alvarez concedes in his brief) that police reports, though hearsay, are admissible in administrative immigration proceedings. Garces v. U.S. Atty. Gen. , 611 F.3d 1337, 1349 (11th Cir. 2010). So, because we have already settled the question of the admissibility of police reports in immigration proceedings, Alvarez has arguably raised a legal question, but it is n’t a colorable one . Stated differently, although Alva rez attempts to dress his appeal as a due process claim, “ [a] petitioner may not create the jurisdiction that Congress chose to remove simply by cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in constitutional garb.” Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 482 F.3d 1281, 128 4 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Torres

- Aguilar v. INS , 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001)).

Case: 18-15240 Date Filed: 10/10/2019 Page: 5 of 66 III We lack jurisdiction to review Alvarez’s petition because he failed to raise a colorable legal question or constitutional issue on appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss his petition. PETITION DISMISSED. Case: 18-15240 Date Filed: 10/10/2019 Page: 6 of 6