Court Opinion

ID: 9378079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-09 17:00:33.643552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:18.860391
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                              For the Eighth Circuit
                          ___________________________

                                  No. 22-2943
                          ___________________________

                           Jesus Eduardo Lopez-Cardona

                                               Petitioner

                                          v.

             Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States

                                           Respondent
                                    ____________

                       Petition for Review of an Order of the
                           Board of Immigration Appeals
                                   ____________

                              Submitted: March 6, 2023
                                Filed: March 9, 2023
                                   [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Mexican citizen Jesus Eduardo Lopez-Cardona petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2), this court dismisses the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

     The BIA dismissed Lopez-Cardona’s appeal from the decision of an
immigration judge (IJ) denying him cancellation of removal. This court lacks
jurisdiction to review the discretionary decision to deny cancellation of removal, but
retains jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law. See 8
U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B), (D).

       Lopez-Cardona first contends this court has jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s
determination that his removal from the United States would not result in exceptional
and extremely unusual hardship to his children because it is a mixed question of law
and fact. The argument is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See Gonzalez-Rivas
v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1129, 1132 (8th Cir. 2022). Lopez-Cardona’s second argument,
that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard in reviewing the IJ’s decision, is
unsupported by the record and fails to raise a colorable claim. See Saleheen v.
Holder, 618 F.3d 957, 961 (8th Cir. 2010) (on petition for review of denial of
cancellation of removal, claim that is insubstantial, frivolous, or made solely for
purpose of obtaining jurisdiction is not colorable claim this court may review). This
court also lacks jurisdiction to review Lopez-Cardona’s argument that the BIA failed
to fully account for, correctly interpret, or give due weight to certain evidence. See
Nunez-Portillo v. Holder, 763 F.3d 974, 977 (8th Cir. 2014) (court has no
jurisdiction to consider attack on BIA’s determination that evidence failed to satisfy
hardship requirement).

      The petition is dismissed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                       ______________________________

                                         -2-