Court Opinion

ID: 9384498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-04 00:00:28.301988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:53.820867
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60240         Document: 00516698754             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/03/2023

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

                                                                                      FILED
                                        No. 21-60240                               April 3, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   Domitilio Miguel Quevedo Mojica,

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.

                          Petition for Review of an Order of the
                              Board of Immigration Appeals
                                  BIA No. A091 886 558

   Before King, Jones, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Domitilio Miguel Quevedo Mojica petitions for review of the Board of
   Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his request for cancellation of removal.
   Because Mojica challenges only the BIA’s hardship determination, we lack
   jurisdiction to review his petition.
          Mojica, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States in
   1987 without first being admitted or paroled. In 2007, he was convicted for

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-60240      Document: 00516698754          Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/03/2023

                                    No. 21-60240

   driving while intoxicated and endangering a child. In 2015, the Department
   of Homeland Security began removal proceedings against him. During those
   proceedings, Mojica requested cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.
   § 1229b(b)(1), arguing his removal would result in exceptional and unusual
   hardship to his United States citizen children. Specifically, he claimed that
   removing him would financially burden his family and exacerbate his
   daughter’s depression. Mojica testified, however, that, if he were removed,
   his family would likely return with him to Mexico.
          The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Mojica relief, concluding that
   his children would not suffer hardship substantially beyond what any child
   would face upon a parent’s removal. While acknowledging that Mojica’s
   daughter suffered from mental-health issues, the IJ found that Mojica failed
   to present evidence that she could not receive adequate treatment in Mexico.
   The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, agreeing that Mojica did not establish the
   required hardship. Mojica now petitions this court for review, arguing the
   BIA and IJ failed to consider the totality of evidence regarding his daughter’s
   ongoing mental-health struggles and his children’s diminished prospects in
   Mexico.
          We lack jurisdiction to review Mojica’s hardship claims. “[T]he
   BIA’s determination that a citizen would face exceptional and extremely
   unusual hardship is an authoritative decision which . . . is beyond our
   review.” Castillo-Gutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 481 (5th Cir. 2022) (per
   curiam) (citing Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1622 (2022)); see 8 U.S.C.
   § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). In response, Mojica claims he presents a legal question
   exempt from the jurisdictional bar, namely whether the district court denied
   him due process by failing to consider all the evidence. We disagree. Mojica’s
   argument “is really just [a] disagreement with the ultimate conclusion” that
   he failed to show the requisite hardship. Hernandez Garcia v. Garland, No.
   21-60934, 2022 WL 17538741, at *1 (5th Cir. Dec. 8, 2022) (per curiam)

                                         2
Case: 21-60240       Document: 00516698754           Page: 3      Date Filed: 04/03/2023

                                      No. 21-60240

   (unpublished). Our jurisdiction does not include such a claim, even when
   “couched in legal terms.” Echeverria v. Garland, No. 21-60181, 2023 WL
   1434281, at *1 (5th Cir. Feb. 1, 2023) (per curiam) (unpublished).1
                                                           PETITION DENIED.

          1
            For the same reason, we also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of
   Mojica’s motion to reconsider its hardship decision.

                                            3