Court Opinion

ID: 9951420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-16 00:00:44.236348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:40:08.370632
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60355           Document: 54-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/15/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                   No. 23-60355
                                 Summary Calendar
                                                                              FILED
                                                                        March 15, 2024
                                 ____________
                                                                         Lyle W. Cayce
Leticia Razo,                                                                 Clerk

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                         versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.
                  ______________________________

                     Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals
                           Agency No. A205 290 518
                  ______________________________

Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Leticia Razo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this court for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her
appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her applications
for withholding of removal and cancellation of removal and ordering her
removed. We review the BIA’s opinion and considers the IJ’s decision only

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60355        Document: 54-1      Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/15/2024

insofar as it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir.
2018).
         Because the BIA’s decision concerning withholding is reviewed for
substantial evidence, we will not disturb it unless the evidence “compels” a
contrary conclusion. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because Razo cites no
evidence compelling a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on the issue
whether her proposed particular social group was cognizable, her challenge
to the rejection of her withholding claim fails, and we need not consider her
remaining arguments concerning this form of relief. See Munoz-De Zelaya v.
Garland, 80 F.4th 689, 693-94 (5th Cir. 2023); Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395,
401, 406-07 (5th Cir. 2021); Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 229 (5th
Cir. 2019).
         Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider her challenge to the BIA’s
determination that she had not made the necessary hardship showing with
respect to her cancellation claim.       See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(1)(D),
1252(a)(2)(B)(i),(D); Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1621-22 (2022);
Castillo-Gutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 481 (5th Cir. 2022); see also Sung
v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir. 2007) (concluding that a constitutional
or legal question was not raised by a claim that the agency did not consider all
the relevant factors in deciding whether there was exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship supporting a discretionary cancellation of removal under
§ 1229b). The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in
part for want of jurisdiction.