Court Opinion

ID: 9412822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 18:01:37.332338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:35.435430
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60251        Document: 00516841331             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/01/2023

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

                                                                                      FILED
                                      No. 21-60251
                                                                                 August 1, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   Sergio Eder Hernandez Martinez,

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                                Agency No. 205-649-564

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Sergio Eder Hernandez-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico,
   petitions us for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
   (BIA) denying him cancellation of removal. The immigration judge (IJ)
   found him not credible and, as a matter of discretion, found that he lacked
   “good moral character,” which disqualified him from the relief he sought

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-60251      Document: 00516841331          Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/01/2023

                                    No. 21-60251

   under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The BIA affirmed, finding no clear error in
   the IJ’s findings “that the respondent provided conflicting testimony and
   was not forthcoming with respect to material aspects of his claim, particularly
   regarding his prior criminal history, continued alcohol use, and total
   earnings.” In his petition, Hernandez-Martinez argues that the agency erred
   in finding him not credible and in finding him not to be a person of good moral
   character.
          Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), however, we lack jurisdiction to
   review “any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section
   . . . § 1229b,” which includes judgments relating to cancellation of removal.
   Our review of these agency determinations is limited to constitutional claims
   and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
          The Supreme Court has held that this jurisdictional bar applies even
   to findings of fact underlying the denial of cancellation of removal under 8
   U.S.C. § 1229b(b). Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1627 (2022); Castillo-
   Gutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 481 (5th Cir. 2022). We have recently
   held that moral-character determinations fall within the jurisdictional bar
   under Patel. Carreon v. Garland, 71 F.4th 247, 254 (5th Cir. 2023) (“Patel
   bars our review of the ‘authoritative decision’ that an alien lacks good moral
   character under § 1229b(b)(1)(B).”); Diaz v. Garland, No. 21-60956, 2023
   WL 4399240, at *2 (5th Cir. July 7, 2023).
          These authorities require us to dismiss the petition. Here, Hernandez-
   Martinez’s petition argues that the record evidence compels the conclusion
   that the agency erred in finding him not credible and not to be a person of
   good moral character. But these are factual challenges that Congress has
   barred from our review. See Patel, 142 S. Ct. at 1621–22, (holding that federal
   courts may not review an IJ’s conclusion that a noncitizen’s testimony is not
   credible); Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 592 (5th Cir. 2021) (adverse

                                         2
Case: 21-60251      Document: 00516841331          Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/01/2023

                                    No. 21-60251

   credibility determinations are findings of fact); Carreon, 71 F.4th at 254
   (holding that moral-character determinations fall within § 1252(a)(2)’s
   jurisdictional bar).
          Although Hernandez-Martinez asserts that the issues he raises are
   questions of law, his position is squarely foreclosed by our precedent because
   his challenges are factual in nature. He also contends that his petition raises
   a justiciable mixed question of law and fact because, according to him, the
   agency misapplied the good-moral-character legal standard to undisputed
   facts. “But he may not—merely by phrasing 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.” Carreon, 71 F.4th at 255 (internal
   quotation marks omitted).
          The petition for review is DISMISSED. The Government’s motion
   to dismiss is DENIED as moot.

                                          3