United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 11, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60263
Summary Calendar
ANTONIO TORRES-PIEDRA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(A78 195 755)
--------------------
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner Antonio Torres-Piedra (“Torres”) petitions this
court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) summarily affirming the order of the Immigration
Judge (IJ) that denied Torres’s application for cancellation of
removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Torres contests the
merits of the IJ’s determination that he was statutorily ineligible
for cancellation of removal on the ground of continuous presence
and because he failed to demonstrate the requisite hardship. The
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Respondent has filed a motion requesting that we dismiss the
petition for lack of jurisdiction because the IJ’s determination on
hardship is a discretionary one that is immune from judicial
review. We agree.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary
determination that Torres’s children would not suffer an
“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if Torres were
deported to Mexico. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D); 8 U.S.C.
1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Bravo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 590, 592 (5th Cir.
2003). As the IJ’s determination on hardship is fatal to Torres’s
application, and that determination is not subject to judicial
review, it would be a hollow act for us to consider the IJ’s
finding on continuous presence, much less rule on it. The
Respondent’s motion is therefore GRANTED and Torres’s petition
DISMISSED.
2