Case: 14-60605 Document: 00513213066 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/30/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 14-60605
FILED
September 30, 2015
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
GASPAR BONIFACIO MARCOS-CARDONA, also known as Angel Cardona-
Rios,
Petitioner
v.
LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A200 967 830
Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Gaspar Bonifacio Marcos-Cardona petitions this court for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) discretionary denial of cancellation of removal. He
argues that this court has jurisdiction because he raises questions of law.
Marcos-Cardona contends that the BIA and IJ failed to aggregate the hardship
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 14-60605 Document: 00513213066 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/30/2015
No. 14-60605
factors he presented, which resulted in a violation of his due process rights and
the right to present evidence. He also argues that the IJ and BIA failed to
consider the impact of removal on his children’s education. In addition,
Marcos-Cardona contends that his son’s speech impediment should have been
given more consideration because his testimony in support of the speech
impediment was credible. Finally, he argues that the IJ and BIA failed to
render an individualized hardship determination as to each child.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), no court shall have jurisdiction to
review any judgment relating to requests for relief under § 1229b. This
provision does not, however, preclude review of constitutional claims or
questions of law. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see Wilmore, v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 524, 526
(5th Cir. 2006). But the alien’s framing of an issue is not dispositive. We will
decline to consider an abuse-of-discretion argument cloaked in constitutional
or legal garb. Hadwani v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 798, 801 (5th Cir. 2006); Delgado-
Reynua v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 596, 599-600 (5th Cir. 2006). That is the case
here. Because Marcos-Cardona’s arguments are nothing more than a
disagreement with the weighing of the factors underlying the discretionary
decision whether he merited cancellation of removal, we lack jurisdiction. See
Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION.
2