Court Opinion

ID: 9366551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 01:00:37.632259+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:53.461141
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60087        Document: 00516624970             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/26/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-60087
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                    ____________                               January 26, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   Ricardo Ortiz Luevanos,                                                           Clerk

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A205 867 718
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Ricardo Ortiz Luevanos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
   review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding
   the denial of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). We
   review the BIA’s decision and consider the decision of the immigration judge

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60087      Document: 00516624970          Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/26/2023

                                    No. 22-60087

   (IJ) only to the extent it influenced the BIA. See Santos-Alvarado v. Barr, 967
   F.3d 428, 436 (5th Cir. 2020).
          Ortiz Luevanos first argues that his notice to appear (NTA) was void
   and failed to convey subject matter jurisdiction because the NTA was not
   served on him simultaneously with its filing in the immigration court and
   willfully misrepresented that it contained all statutorily mandated
   information, despite the omission of a hearing date and time. His arguments
   do not implicate the immigration court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See
   Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 691-93, 692 n.5 (5th Cir. 2019), abrogated
   in part on other grounds by Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021);
   Mejia v. Barr, 952 F.3d 255, 261 (5th Cir. 2020). As such, the arguments
   must have been raised properly and were subject to forfeiture. See Pierre-
   Paul, 930 F.3d 693.
          While the BIA addressed the arguments on the merits, the BIA also
   alternatively determined that they were waived on appeal because Ortiz
   Luevanos did not raise them before the IJ. The BIA was permitted to deem
   the arguments waived on that basis. See Santos-Alvarado, 967 F.3d at 440
   n.13; Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 195 n.14 (5th Cir. 2004). Accordingly,
   the petition for review is denied as to Ortiz Luevanos’s challenges concerning
   the NTA.
          Ortiz Luevanos also argues that the IJ and BIA erred regarding
   cancellation of removal by improperly excluding and disregarding certain
   pieces of evidence relating to the issue of hardship. We lack jurisdiction to
   review the determination that he failed to establish that his children would
   suffer “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” upon his removal.
   § 1229b(b)(1)(D); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Castillo-Gutierrez v.
   Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 481 (5th Cir. 2022). Ortiz Luevanos contends that his
   argument concerns procedural error and presents questions of law that we

                                         2
Case: 22-60087      Document: 00516624970           Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/26/2023

                                     No. 22-60087

   have jurisdiction to consider under § 1252(a)(2)(D), but the contention is
   unavailing. The IJ and BIA considered the pieces of evidence that he
   contends were improperly excluded or disregarded. His argument on this
   issue amounts to a contention that the IJ and BIA did not weigh the evidence
   correctly and reached the wrong conclusion regarding hardship. We lack
   jurisdiction to consider such disagreement with the hardship determination.
   See Castillo-Gutierrez, 43 F.4th at 481. Thus, regarding the issue of hardship,
   the petition for review is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
          For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED in part
   and DISMISSED in part.

                                           3