Opinion
21-60240
04-03-2023
Domitilio Miguel Quevedo Mojica, Petitioner, v. 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 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) (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).
For the same reason, we also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of Mojica's motion to reconsider its hardship decision.
PETITION DENIED.
[*] This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.