Opinion ID: 203006
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: New Evidence Regarding Other Familial Changes

Text: Parvez also argues that the BIA violated his due process rights because [t]he BIA appeared not to have considered any of the supporting evidence filed with the motion, particularly evidence pertaining to his sister's departure from Bangladesh, his mother's forced retirement on account of age, and his son's success in school. However, the BIA's language adequately demonstrates that the BIA considered the proffered evidence on these other familial changes and nonetheless decided against Parvez. The BIA directly addressed his son's circumstances, noting that the son would not experience exceptional and extremely unusual hardship in part because he is very young, and capable of adapting to life in Bangladesh. Here, Parvez's claim is a disguised challenge to fact finding. See Pan v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 80, 84 (1st Cir.2007) (holding that constitutional claims raised under the § 1252(a)(2)(D) exception must be more than a disguised challenge to factual findings). Thus, we have no jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of the motion to reopen the cancellation of removal on the ground that the BIA did not adequately consider evidence regarding his sister's, mother's, and son's changed circumstances.