USCA11 Case: 20-10355 Date Filed: 01/20/2021 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-10355
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A207-241-014
JUAN ANTONIO LOPEZ-VAZQUEZ,
a.k.a. Juan Lopez,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(January 20, 2021)
Before WILSON, NEWSOM and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-10355 Date Filed: 01/20/2021 Page: 2 of 3
Juan Lopez-Vazquez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for
cancellation of removal for failure to establish that his removal would result in
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship on his citizen-born children. Because
this court lacks jurisdiction to review BIA decisions denying cancellation of
removal based on hardship determinations, we dismiss Lopez-Vazquez’s petition.
Lopez-Vazquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States in
2000, without inspection. On June 11, 2017, the Department of Homeland
Security issued a Notice to Appear, which alleged removability under INA
§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Lopez-Vazquez conceded
removability, and filed a cancellation-of-removal application and adjustment of
status. He noted that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship to his children and that if he were removed, they would have to
stay in the United States. The IJ denied Lopez-Vazquez’s application for
cancellation of removal, finding that he had not satisfied the requirement that his
removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to qualifying
relatives. On appeal, the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision.
Now Lopez-Vazquez challenges the denial of his application, contending
that he presented sufficient evidence to satisfy the requisite element of exceptional
and extremely unusual hardship. He argues that the IJ inadequately considered the
2
USCA11 Case: 20-10355 Date Filed: 01/20/2021 Page: 3 of 3
totality of the medical and financial hardships to his children. We review only the
BIA’s decision, unless, as in this case, the BIA adopts the IJ’s reasoning. Najjar v.
Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1283 (11th Cir. 2001). Where the BIA adopts the IJ’s
reasoning, we review the IJ’s decision as well. Id. We review our subject-matter
jurisdiction de novo. Jairath v. Dyer, 154 F.3d 1280, 1281–82 (11th Cir. 1998).
This court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions, including
determinations of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. INA
§ 240A(b)(1)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D); see Gonzalez-Oropeza v. Att’y Gen.,
321 F.3d 1331, 1332–33 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Notwithstanding that
jurisdictional bar, however, this court may consider constitutional claims or
questions of law raised in a petition for review. INA § 242(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(D). Here, Lopez-Vazquez challenges the IJ’s weighing of the
evidence as to the hardship—a matter of discretion. Although this court would
have jurisdiction to consider a constitutional claim or question of law, he has not
raised any. Consequently, we do not have jurisdiction and, therefore, dismiss the
petition.
PETITION DISMISSED.
3