Court Opinion

ID: 9555748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-15 00:00:36.295083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:41:59.947571
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60057        Document: 00516857352             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/14/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-60057
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                August 14, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Jose Raul Lopez-Galeaz,                                                            Clerk

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A077 620 182
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
   Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Jose Raul Lopez-Galeaz, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions
   for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
   upholding the immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal,
   withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
   Torture (CAT). We review the BIA’s decision and consider the immigration
         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60057      Document: 00516857352          Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/14/2023

                                    No. 23-60057

   judge’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. See Santos-Alvarado
   v. Barr, 967 F.3d 428, 436 (5th Cir. 2020).
          We lack jurisdiction to review Lopez-Galeaz’s challenge to the
   hardship finding with regard to cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C.
   § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Castillo-Gutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 481 (5th Cir.
   2022). Because the issue of hardship is dispositive in establishing his
   ineligibility for cancellation of removal, we do not reach his argument
   concerning continuous physical presence in the United States. See INS v.
   Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).
          As to withholding of removal, the BIA upheld the immigration judge’s
   finding on nexus and alternatively deemed that the issue of nexus was waived
   because Lopez-Galeaz did not challenge it.         An applicant’s failure to
   demonstrate nexus is dispositive for withholding of removal. See Gonzales-
   Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir. 2019). Lopez-Galeaz does not
   contest the BIA’s waiver ruling here and therefore has waived any such
   challenge in this court. See Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th
   Cir. 2008). The BIA’s waiver determination is a sufficient basis on which to
   deny the petition for review as to withholding of removal. See Santos-
   Alvarado, 967 F.3d at 440 n.13. Accordingly, the petition for review is denied
   regarding withholding of removal.
          Lopez-Galeaz also does not dispute the BIA’s determination that he
   waived the issue of CAT relief in the BIA by failing to challenge it there. See
   Chambers, 520 F.3d at 448 n.1. Thus, the petition for review is also denied
   regarding CAT relief.
          For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED in
   part for lack of jurisdiction and DENIED in all other respects.

                                         2