Court Opinion

ID: 9399667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-06 00:00:41.607849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:33.423526
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60346         Document: 00516775405             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/05/2023

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

                                      ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                      June 5, 2023
                                       No. 22-60346                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                     Clerk

   Juan De Dios Chavez-Lopez,

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                      ______________________________

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                               Agency No. A206 239 480
                      ______________________________

   Before Jones, Clement, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Petitioner Juan De Dios Chavez-Lopez petitions for review of the
   Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen.
   Chavez-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, arrived in the United States in
   1996. He has a spouse who has no legal status and five U.S. citizen children.
   In 2015, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal
   proceedings against Chavez-Lopez. After an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)

         _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60346        Document: 00516775405              Page: 2      Date Filed: 06/05/2023

                                         No. 22-60346

   found Chavez-Lopez removable, Chavez-Lopez appealed to the BIA. The
   BIA sustained his appeal, remanding the case to the IJ for consideration of
   potential relief from removal.
           Chavez-Lopez then applied for cancellation of removal, asserting that
   his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to
   his children. 1 The IJ concluded that Chavez-Lopez failed to demonstrate
   such hardship and denied his application. Chavez-Lopez appealed to the
   BIA, which adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, dismissing the appeal.
   Chavez-Lopez then moved for reconsideration (in the nature of reopening).
   He urged that there was new evidence that his two youngest children suffered
   severe mental health hardships. The BIA denied this motion, reasoning that
   Chavez-Lopez had failed to (1) show a factual or legal error that warranted
   reconsideration or (2) demonstrate that the newly discovered evidence
   would change the ultimate result. Chavez-Lopez now seeks our review of the
   BIA’s denial of his motion.
           “[W]e review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen or to reconsider
   under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Zhao v. Gonzales,
   404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005). We will only overturn the BIA under this
   standard if its decision is “capricious, racially invidious, utterly without
   foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather
   than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Id. at 304 (quotation
   omitted).

           _____________________
           1
             Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), the Attorney General has the discretion to “cancel
   removal of” noncitizens who are removable but meet certain criteria. Most relevant here,
   those criteria include whether the noncitizen “establishes that removal would result in
   exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the [noncitizen’s] spouse . . . or child, who
   is a citizen of the United States or a[] [noncitizen] lawfully admitted for permanent
   residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).

                                               2
Case: 22-60346        Document: 00516775405            Page: 3      Date Filed: 06/05/2023

                                        No. 22-60346

           Chavez-Lopez argues on appeal that the BIA abused its discretion by
   overlooking the new evidence of mental health hardships his two youngest
   children have experienced throughout his proceedings, which, he contends,
   was material to the outcome of his case. Chavez-Lopez also asserts that the
   BIA abused its discretion by failing to consider his evidence cumulatively and
   ignoring relevant precedent while arbitrarily comparing his situation to a
   dissimilar case. We begin our review by considering our jurisdiction.
           8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) prohibits us from reviewing certain BIA
   determinations, including the BIA’s hardship determination at issue here.
   As we recently concluded, under Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614 (2022)
   “the BIA’s determination that a citizen would face exceptional and
   extremely unusual hardship is an authoritative decision which falls within the
   scope of [8 U.S.C.] § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and is beyond our review.” Castillo-
   Gutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 481 (5th Cir. 2022) (per curiam).
   Likewise, we also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to reopen an
   order of removal if the underlying order is not subject to judicial review under
   § 1252(a)(2). Assaad v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 471, 474 (5th Cir. 2004) (per
   curiam). As such, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Chavez-
   Lopez’s motion to reopen insofar as he challenges its hardship
   determination. 2
           Despite these bars, we do possess jurisdiction over “constitutional
   claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Chavez-Lopez does
   not raise any constitutional claims. He does contend that he is raising
   questions regarding whether the BIA incorrectly interpreted the law by
   failing to consider his evidence cumulatively or arbitrarily comparing his case
          _____________________
           2
             To the extent Chavez-Lopez characterizes his motion as a motion for
   reconsideration and argues the BIA erred in denying that motion, we lack jurisdiction to
   consider the BIA’s denial for the same reasons noted above.

                                              3
Case: 22-60346      Document: 00516775405          Page: 4    Date Filed: 06/05/2023

                                    No. 22-60346

   to another, different case.     But Chavez-Lopez “may not—merely by
   phras[ing] his argument in legal terms—use[] those terms to cloak a request
   for review of the BIA’s discretionary decision, which is not a question of
   law.” Nastase v. Barr, 964 F.3d 313, 319 (5th Cir. 2020) (alteration in
   original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, insofar as
   Chavez-Lopez’s challenge amounts to a disagreement with the BIA’s
   hardship determination, we lack jurisdiction over it. See id.; see also Delgado-
   Reynua v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 596, 599–600 (5th Cir. 2006).
          To the extent Chavez-Lopez does raise a question of law, his
   arguments fail on the merits. The BIA applied the appropriate standard,
   cumulatively assessed his evidence, and then concluded that said evidence
   failed to satisfy the high standard for reopening. We cannot say that the
   BIA’s analysis was “so irrational that it [wa]s arbitrary rather than the result
   of any perceptible rational approach.” Zhao, 404 F.3d at 304 (quotation
   omitted).
          Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, Chavez-Lopez’s petition is
   DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction and DENIED in part.

                                          4