Court Opinion

ID: 9407626
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-07 18:00:56.20882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:39.295294
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60956        Document: 00516812463             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/07/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                                                                      FILED
                                                                                     July 7, 2023
                                        No. 21-60956                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk

   Naun Diaz,

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.

                          Petition for Review of an Order of the
                              Board of Immigration Appeals
                                  BIA No. 095-072-851

   Before Graves, Ho, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Petitioner is ineligible for cancellation of removal due to his bad moral
   character—namely, his twelve-year record of misrepresenting his identity to
   multiple government agencies. See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A)–(B).
   That is what an immigration judge determined, and the Board of Immigration
   Appeals affirmed, consistent with the sovereign authority of the United
   States to exclude aliens who engage in such a pattern of misconduct from our

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-60956       Document: 00516812463           Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/07/2023

                                      No. 21-60956

   borders. He now petitions our court for review. But we lack jurisdiction to
   do so.
            Federal law makes clear that “no court shall have jurisdiction to
   review,” among other things, “any judgment regarding the granting of relief
   under section . . . 1229b,” which concerns cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C.
   § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). That provision “precludes judicial review of factual
   findings that underlie a denial of relief,” as the Supreme Court held last year
   in Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1618 (2022). And that is precisely what
   Petitioner asks us to do here—provide judicial review of a factual finding
   about his moral character, which formed the basis for his denial of
   cancellation of removal.
            We accordingly dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.
                                           I.
            Naun Diaz is a native and citizen of Honduras. Naun Diaz is an alias,
   however—his real name is Anahun Isaac Requeno Diaz. He entered the
   United States without authorization in 2001.
            Shortly after, he purchased the birth certificate of a Salvadoran named
   Naun Diaz, and used it to fraudulently apply for temporary protected status
   as a citizen of El Salvador. Diaz also used this identity to obtain employment
   authorization, a social security number, and a Texas driver’s license.
            In 2013, Diaz went to a police station to help a friend. But he was
   arrested because the real Naun Diaz had an arrest warrant pending against
   him for the crime of indecency with a child. After fingerprinting confirmed
   that he wasn’t the Naun Diaz against whom the warrant had been issued, he
   was released from custody and referred to Immigration and Customs
   Enforcement. After he provided proof of his true identity, Diaz applied for

                                           2
Case: 21-60956      Document: 00516812463          Page: 3    Date Filed: 07/07/2023

                                    No. 21-60956

   cancellation of removal and adjustment of status for certain non-citizen
   residents under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
          Diaz and his wife presented evidence that he was eligible for
   cancellation of removal—including evidence of good moral character. The
   immigration judge found both Diaz and his wife credible. But the judge found
   that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal based on his longstanding
   fraudulent use of his alias—a pattern of misconduct that included
   misrepresentations to multiple government agencies.
          The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that determination,
   observing that Diaz “continued to use [his] false identity, including to obtain
   government benefits and to file tax returns, well into the relevant ten-year
   good moral character period and [his] adult years.”
          Diaz now petitions this court for review of the Board’s order.
                                         II.
          Diaz argues that he has demonstrated his good moral character for
   purposes of cancellation of removal and therefore should not have been found
   statutorily ineligible for relief. He contends that the immigration judge and
   the BIA erred in finding otherwise by failed to give due consideration to his
   positive character qualities and evidence of reform.        The Government
   responds that the determination of his moral character during the relevant
   statutory period was supported by substantial evidence. We do not reach the
   merits of these arguments, because we do not have jurisdiction in this case to
   review them.
          Cancellation of removal is a form of discretionary relief. See 8 U.S.C.
   § 1229b(b)(1). Federal law provides that the Attorney General may cancel
   an alien’s removal if the alien satisfies four conditions. See id. Most relevant
   here, the alien must establish that he “has been a person of good moral

                                          3
Case: 21-60956       Document: 00516812463            Page: 4   Date Filed: 07/07/2023

                                       No. 21-60956

   character” for “a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately
   preceding the date of such application.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A)–(B).
          An alien who has committed any of nine enumerated offenses is
   precluded from being found to possess good moral character. 8 U.S.C. §
   1101(f)(1)–(9). In addition, aliens who haven’t committed an enumerated
   offense may nevertheless be found lacking in character under a “catch-all”
   provision. See id. § 1101(f). That provision makes clear that “[t]he fact that
   any person is not within any of the foregoing classes shall not preclude a
   finding that for other reasons such person is or was not of good moral
   character.” Id.
          Another provision of federal law restricts judicial review of certain
   discretionary immigration decisions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). In
   particular, we lack “jurisdiction to review . . . any judgment regarding the
   granting of relief under section . . . 1229b,” which addresses cancellation of
   removal—the relief Diaz seeks in this case. Id. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
          This bar on our jurisdiction “precludes judicial review of factual
   findings that underlie a denial of relief.” Patel, 142 S. Ct. at 1618. “[I]t
   prohibits review of any judgment regarding the granting of relief under . . .
   [the] enumerated provisions.”          Id. at 1622.     So “§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)
   encompasses not just ‘the granting of relief’ but also any judgment relating to
   the granting of relief.” Id. And that “plainly includes factual findings.” Id.
          In sum, “[f]ederal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part
   of discretionary-relief proceedings under . . . [the] provisions enumerated in
   § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).” Id. at 1627.
          We recently construed Patel to preclude judicial review of another
   determination that the Attorney General must make to grant cancellation of
   review. See Castillo-Gutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th 477 (5th Cir. 2022).
   Separate and apart from finding good moral character during the requisite 10-

                                            4
Case: 21-60956      Document: 00516812463           Page: 5    Date Filed: 07/07/2023

                                     No. 21-60956

   year period, the Attorney General must also find that “removal would result
   in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent,
   or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for
   permanent residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). We recently concluded
   that, under Patel, we have no jurisdiction to review such hardship
   determinations. See Castillo-Gutierrez, 43 F.4th at 481. “Patel makes clear
   that the [Board’s] determination that a citizen would face exceptional and
   extremely unusual hardship is an authoritative decision which falls within the
   scope of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and is beyond our review.” Id.
          We have since extended Castillo-Gutierrez’s application of Patel to
   moral character determinations. See Carreon v. Garland, --- F.4th ---, 2023
   WL 4004120, at *4 (5th Cir. 2023). In Carreon, we held that “Patel bars our
   review of the ‘authoritative decision’ that an alien lacks good moral character
   under § 1229b(b)(1)(B).”        Id.   The court reasoned that petitioner’s
   “contention that the BIA did not properly consider all the relevant factors
   does not involve a constitutional claim or question of law.” Id. The same is
   true here: At its core, Petitioner’s argument is that the IJ and BIA didn’t give
   enough weight to his positive equities in determining whether he has good
   moral character. As with hardship determinations, judicial review of
   factfinding in moral character determinations is likewise barred by
   § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and Patel.
          We dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.

                                          5