Summary
This Fifth Circuit opinion reviews a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying an application for cancellation of removal. The court dismisses the petition in part for lack of jurisdiction over the agency's discretionary denial of relief and denies the remaining claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies before the BIA. The decision clarifies that statutory eligibility arguments do not create jurisdiction when the agency's dispositive ruling rests solely on discretionary grounds.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Fifth Circuit has jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
- Whether Linares-Rivas’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is unexhausted under 8 U.S.C. §1252(d)(1).
Holdings
- The court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of cancellation of removal.
- The claim is unexhausted because it was not raised in the BIA brief, and therefore the petition is denied as to that claim.
Key quotations
“We review the BIA’s decision and consider the [immigration judge]’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA.” (at 1)
“While we have jurisdiction to review “constitutional claims” and “questions of law” under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision to grant or deny cancellation of removal, see § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 225 n.4 (2024).” (at 1)
Factual background
Linares-Rivas, a Mexican citizen, was placed in removal proceedings in 2016. He applied for cancellation of removal, claiming exceptional hardship to his U.S. citizen children, but submitted untimely and insufficient evidence. The immigration judge denied the application and the BIA affirmed.
Procedural history
The immigration judge denied Linares-Rivas's cancellation of removal application. The BIA affirmed. Linares-Rivas timely petitioned the Fifth Circuit for review.