20

- 586(L) Mazariegos v. Garland UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this court ’ s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “ summary order ” ). A party citing a s ummary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 2 3 rd day of April , two thousand twenty

- one . PRESENT: Guido Calabresi , Steven J. Menashi , Circuit Judges , John G. Koeltl , District Judge

. *

________________________________ ____________ RAUL MAZARIEGOS, AKA RAUL SANDOVAL ALALRCON, AKA MARIO ROLANDO MARTINEZ,
Petitioner ,

* Judge John G. Koeltl , United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.2 v. No. 20

- 586 (L), 20

- 1922(Con ) MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondent

. †

________________________________ ____________
For Petitioner : S. Bernard S c hwarz, S. Bernard Schwarz & Associates, New York, NY.
For Respondent : Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Claire L. Workman, Assistant Director; Edward C. Durant, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the lead petition is DISMISSED and the consolidated petition is
DENIED.

† The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above

.3 Petitioner Raul Mazariegos, a native an d citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of a January 17, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming an April 17, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Mazariegos’s application for cancellation of removal, and a June 11, 2020 decision of the BIA denyi ng his motion to reopen. In re Raul Mazariegos, No. A 097 519 228 (B.I.A. Jan. 17, 2020), aff’g No. A 097 519 228 (Immig. Ct. Apr. 17, 2018); In re Raul Mazariegos, No. A 097 519 228 (B.I.A. Jun. 11, 2020). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the under lying facts and procedural history.
I We dismiss the lead petition , No. 20

- 586 , for lack of jurisdiction. Mazariegos challenges the denial of cancellation of removal. To obtain cancellation, he had to establish, among other requirements, that his removal “would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to” a qualifying
relative

— here, his three children. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Our review is limited to the hardship determination because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision on that ground al one. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Our jurisdiction to review the denial of cancellation of removal based on an applicant’s failure to satisfy the hardship requirement is limited to constitutional4 claims and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); Barco

- Sandoval v. Gonzales , 516 F.3d 35, 39

- 40 (2d Cir. 2008). Hardship requir es a nonpermanent resident to demonstrate that “qualifying relatives would suffer hardship that is substantially different from, or beyond, that which would normally be expected from the deportation of an alien with close family members.” In re Monreal

- Aguinaga , 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 65 (B.I.A. 2001)

. Mazariegos’s argument

— that the agency overlooked the economic impact
of his d eparture on the children, who will stay in the United States if he is removed,
and the indirect effect that their mother’s stress and economic burden will cause
the children

— is not colorable. T he record here reflects that the agency considered
all the evid ence. To the extent that Mazariegos disputes the agency’s factual findings and exercise of discretion, these are not reviewable. See Barco

- Sandoval , 516 F.3d at 39.
II We deny the consolidated petition, No. 20

- 1922 , in which Mazariegos challenges the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen.
We review the denial of the motion for abuse of discretion. See Zhao Quan Chen v. Gonzales , 492 F.3d 153, 154 (2d Cir. 2007).5 Mazariegos’s brief does not address the grounds on which the BIA den ied his motion. He argues that the IJ failed to provide a reasoned decision for not closing his case when he requested prosecutorial discretion. This argument is misplaced because he did not request administrative closure before the IJ and there
was no basis for the IJ to raise the issue given the Department of Homeland Security’s determination it would not exercise prosecutorial discretion in Mazariegos’s favor. Mazariegos has thus abandoned his challenge to the denial of reopening. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonza les , 426 F.3d 540, 546 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). Even were we to reach the BIA’s grounds for denying reopening, we would find no
abuse of discretion. Mazariegos sought reopening to pursue prosecutorial discretion, but, as the BIA stated, Mazariegos can seek an e xercise of that discretion without administrative closure or reopening. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(c)(2)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 241.6(a). Mazariegos’s argument for reopening based on New York ’s legislation retroactively reducing sentences for class A misdemeanors was imm aterial because the BIA did not rely on his conviction in denying cancellation of removal.
* * *6 For the foregoing reasons, the lead petition is DISMISSED and the consolidated petition is DENIED.
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Cou 

### rt