Court Opinion

ID: 9392910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-08 18:00:31.187375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:49.825926
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60616        Document: 00516741253             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/08/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-60616
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                     May 8, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   Jorge Reyes-Alvarado,                                                             Clerk

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A208 550 511
                     ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Jorge Reyes-Alvarado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
   review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing
   his appeal from a decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his
   application for cancellation of removal and ordering him removed. This

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60616      Document: 00516741253          Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/08/2023

                                    No. 22-60616

   court reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the IJ’s only insofar as it is
   adopted by the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018).
          Insofar as Reyes-Alvarado challenges the IJ’s determinations
   concerning good moral character and credibility, this court may not review
   them. See id. The BIA “agree[d]” with the IJ’s “dispositive” conclusion
   that Reyes-Alvarado had not made the requisite showing of “exceptional and
   extremely unusual hardship” to his United States children. See Castillo-
   Gutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 481 (5th Cir. 2022). Because Reyes-
   Alvarado does not address this issue, and we are precluded from reviewing
   the portions of the IJ’s opinion not adopted by the BIA, the issues of his good
   moral character and credibility are not properly before this court.
          Reyes-Alvarado’s argument that his due process right not to be
   separated from his children will be infringed by the denial of his cancellation
   claim fails because the denial of cancellation does not implicate any protected
   interests under the Due Process Clause and because removal does not
   implicate any protected liberty interest in a parent’s relationship with his
   children. See Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213, 219 (5th Cir. 2003);
   Malagon de Fuentes v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 498, 505-06 (5th Cir. 2006); see also
   Carrillo-Almazan v. Lynch, 613 F. App’x 441, 442 (5th Cir. 2015). Finally,
   his argument that his due process rights were violated when the IJ and BIA
   exhibited bias fails because he has not shown “pervasive bias and prejudice”
   or “hostility due to extrajudicial sources or . . . a deep-seated favoritism or
   antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” See Cardona-Franco
   v. Garland, 35 F.4th 359, 363 (5th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks and
   citation omitted).
          The petition for review is DENIED.

                                             2