Case: 19-14727 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-14727
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A095-795-089
MAURICIO MENDOZA HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(July 7, 2020)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, JILL PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-14727 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 2 of 3
Mauricio Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order that dismissed his appeal.
Hernandez argues that the BIA erred in when it affirmed the Immigration Judge’s
(“IJ”) order denying his application for cancellation of removal filed pursuant to
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 240A(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b).
Specifically, he argues that the BIA erred when it agreed with the IJ’s
determination that he had not established that his children would endure an
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he were removed to Mexico.
We review our subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Martinez v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2006). To be eligible for cancellation of
removal, a nonpermanent resident alien must establish all of the following: (1) he
has been physically present in the United States for at least 10 years; (2) he has
been a “person of good moral character” for that period; (3) he has not been
convicted of certain criminal offenses; and (4) his removal would result in
“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his spouse, parent, or child, who
is a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident. INA § 240A(b)(1), 8
U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
We lack jurisdiction to review any order or judgment regarding relief under
certain provisions of the INA, including the sections concerning cancellation of
removal and adjustment of status. INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C.
2
Case: 19-14727 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 3 of 3
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Notwithstanding that jurisdictional bar, however, we retain
jurisdiction to review any petition that raises a constitutional claim or question of
law. INA § 242(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). A challenge to the BIA’s
determination that an alien has not shown exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship, for cancellation of removal purposes, is not a constitutional claim subject
to review under this exception. Alhuay v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 661 F.3d 534, 549-50
(11th Cir. 2011).
Here, the BIA agreed with the IJ’s determination that Hernandez failed to
establish that his removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship” to his spouse or children. This was a discretionary determination made
by the BIA, which is not reviewable by this Court, unless Hernandez presents a
colorable constitutional claim or question of law. INA § 242(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a)(2)(D). However, in his initial brief, Hernandez does not present any
constitutional claim or question of law. Rather, he argues that the facts before the
IJ and the BIA, concerning his daughter’s medical condition, should have been
enough to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. That argument is
not a constitutional claim or a question of law that will allow judicial review of the
BIA’s order dismissing his case. Alhuay, 661 F.3d at 549-50. Accordingly, we
dismiss his petition because we lack jurisdiction to review it.
PETITION DISMISSED.
3
Mauricio Mendoza Hernandez v. U.S. Attorney General
Combined Opinion