Court Opinion

ID: 9352043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-04 19:00:20.312273+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:50.720326
License: Public Domain

Case: 20-60620         Document: 00516596667             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/04/2023

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

                                                                                 FILED
                                                                           January 4, 2023
                                       No. 20-60620
                                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                            Clerk

   Jimmy Esau Arteaga,

                                                                                    Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                 Respondent.

                           Petition for Review of an Order of the
                               Board of Immigration Appeals
                                 Agency No. A074 294 159

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Jimmy Esau Arteaga, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions this
   court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
   affirming an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his applications for
   cancellation of removal and withholding of removal. He argues that the IJ
   erred by finding that he was not credible regarding his assets and income and

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 20-60620       Document: 00516596667           Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/04/2023

                                      No. 20-60620

   by concluding that he had not made the requisite hardship showing. We lack
   jurisdiction to consider these arguments. Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614,
   1621-22, 1627 (2022); Castillo-Gutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 481 (5th
   Cir. 2022).
            Arteaga also argues that the IJ misapplied the law by reasoning that his
   parents could help support Arteaga’s daughters if he is removed to El
   Salvador because his parents have no legal obligation to provide such support.
   To the extent that Arteaga’s argument implicates a question of law, over
   which this court retains jurisdiction, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Arteaga failed
   to exhaust the issue before the BIA. We therefore lack jurisdiction to
   consider this argument. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318-19 (5th Cir.
   2009).
            We also lack jurisdiction to consider Arteaga’s unexhausted argument
   that the IJ misapplied the law for determining a particular social group by
   using the framework set forth in In re A-M-E & J-G-U-, 241 I & N. Dec. 69,
   69 (BIA 2007). See Omari, 562 F.3d at 318-19.
            Finally, to the extent that Arteaga challenges the denial of his claim
   under the Convention Against Torture, the BIA concluded that Arteaga
   waived this claim. Arteaga did not challenge the BIA’s conclusion before the
   BIA, and so we lack jurisdiction over this claim, too. See Omari, 562 F.3d at
   318-19.
            Consequently, the petition for review is DISMISSED.

                                           2