Court Opinion

ID: 9384180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-01 00:00:47.711945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:51.144287
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60737     Document: 00516697393         Page: 1     Date Filed: 03/31/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                ____________
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                              Fifth Circuit
                                  No. 21-60737
                                Summary Calendar                            FILED
                                ____________                          March 31, 2023
                                                                       Lyle W. Cayce
   Arame Niang,                                                             Clerk

                                                                       Petitioner,

                                       versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                     Respondent.
                  ______________________________

                     Petitions for Review of Orders of the
                        Board of Immigration Appeals
                           Agency No. A093 426 803
                  ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Arame Niang, a native and citizen of Senegal, petitions for review of
   orders by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of her
   application for cancellation of removal and denying her motion to reconsider.

          _____________________
          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
   circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-60737      Document: 00516697393           Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                     No. 21-60737

          We review de novo whether we have jurisdiction over a petition for
   review. Hadwani v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 798, 800 (5th Cir. 2006). Niang
   argues that the BIA erred by concluding that she had not made the requisite
   hardship showing and denying her request for cancellation of removal.
   However, we lack jurisdiction to consider her arguments. See Patel v.
   Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1622 (2022); Castillo-Gutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th
   477, 481 (5th Cir. 2022). We similarly lack jurisdiction to review the denial
   of her motion to reconsider insofar as she argues that she made the requisite
   hardship showing. See Assaad v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 471, 475 (5th Cir. 2004).
          While Niang claims that the BIA committed legal error by
   impermissibly considering her daughter’s age and by overlooking the fact
   that no female genital mutilation cases are prosecuted in Senegal despite it
   being illegal, an assertion that the BIA failed to consider or put insufficient
   emphasis on particular factors “merely asks this Court to replace the [BIA’s]
   evaluation of the evidence with a new outcome, which falls squarely within
   the jurisdictional bar of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B).” Sattani v. Holder,
   749 F.3d 368, 372 (5th Cir. 2014); see also Castillo-Gutierrez, 43 F.4th at 481.
   Moreover, her assertion that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard by
   treating its decision in Matter of Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 467, 467 (BIA 2002),
   as a threshold that a petitioner must meet in order to demonstrate an undue
   and extremely unusual hardship is unavailing. The BIA merely compared the
   hardship alleged by Niang to that demonstrated by the petitioner in Recinas
   after outlining the specific reasons for agreeing with the immigration judge’s
   hardship determination. See Delgado–Reynua v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 596, 599-
   600 (5th Cir. 2006).
          Accordingly, Niang’s petitions for review are DISMISSED.

                                          2