NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 16a0549n.06

No. 16-3188

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

MOISES ACEVEDO-PEREZ,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, U.S. Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW 

FROM THE UNITED STATES 

BOARD OF IMMIGRATION 

APPEALS

BEFORE: SUTTON and STRANCH, Circuit Judges; STEEH, District Judge.

PER CURIAM. Moises Acevedo-Perez petitions this court for review of an order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for 

cancellation of removal. 

Acevedo-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without 

inspection in 2000. In 2010, after his arrest for traffic violations, the Department of Homeland 

Security served Acevedo-Perez with a notice to appear in removal proceedings, charging him 

with removability as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. See

8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Acevedo-Perez appeared before an immigration judge (IJ) and 

conceded removability. Acevedo-Perez subsequently applied for cancellation of removal on the 

basis that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United 

 

 The Honorable George C. Steeh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of 

Michigan, sitting by designation.
No. 16-3188

Acevedo-Perez v. Lynch

- 2 -

States citizen child, who has an ear condition that requires reconstructive surgery when she is 

older. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). After a hearing, the IJ denied Acevedo-Perez’s application 

for cancellation of removal, finding that hardship would exist but would not rise to the level of 

exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. On appeal, the BIA determined that the IJ properly 

considered the relevant hardship factors with respect to Acevedo-Perez’s child and agreed that 

Acevedo-Perez failed to establish eligibility for cancellation of removal. 

This timely petition for review followed. The respondent contends that we should 

dismiss Acevedo-Perez’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. This court lacks jurisdiction to review 

the discretionary denial of an application for cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). We retain jurisdiction, however, to consider “constitutional claims or 

questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see Montanez-Gonzalez v. Holder, 780 F.3d 720, 

722 (6th Cir. 2015). 

Acevedo-Perez argues that the BIA violated his due process rights in holding that he 

failed to show that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his 

child. “[T]he Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause mandates that removal hearings be 

fundamentally fair and that a petitioner is entitled to a full and fair hearing.” Abdallahi v. 

Holder, 690 F.3d 467, 472-73 (6th Cir. 2012). To succeed on his due process claim, AcevedoPerez must demonstrate that there was a defect in the removal proceeding and that he was 

prejudiced by the defect. Id. at 472. Acevedo-Perez does not identify any defect in the removal 

proceeding. Although he frames his argument as a constitutional claim, Acevedo-Perez 

essentially challenges the agency’s discretionary determination that he failed to demonstrate the 

requisite hardship, which we lack jurisdiction to review. See Ettienne v. Holder, 659 F.3d 513, 

518-19 (6th Cir. 2011). 
No. 16-3188

Acevedo-Perez v. Lynch

- 3 -

Acevedo-Perez also argues that the BIA committed gross error in failing to apply its own 

relevant precedents to the pertinent facts of his case. See Aburto-Rocha v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 

500, 503 (6th Cir. 2008) (stating that the BIA’s “adherence to precedent is a non-discretionary 

act”). “[T]his court lacks jurisdiction over claims that can be evaluated only by engaging in 

head-to-head comparisons between the facts of the petitioner’s case and those of precedential 

decisions.” Ettienne, 659 F.3d at 518. By asserting that the BIA’s precedents suggest that a 

petitioner whose United States citizen child has serious health problems would have a strong 

case for cancellation of removal, Acevedo-Perez asks us to do exactly the sort of factual 

comparison and reweighing in which we may not engage.

For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS Acevedo-Perez’s petition for review.